Say Anything Blog

Bias? What bias? I don’t see no stinking bias!

Amazing. W enforces the policies set in place by BJ. And yet it is no BJ’s fault that the policy exists?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So, it’s fair to blame a 50 year old agricultural policy on the liberals but not this on Bush?

Liderals/Democrat put that faulty ag-policy in place and have fought tooth&nail to keep it there. That makes it their fault. Cause and effect. You see how that works, right?

And for the record, I favor rendition, and severe interrogation techniques. And yes, I been put through the mill during SERE, so I know how hard interrogation can become on the subject. I came out of the second set with 3 broken fingers, fractured rib, fractured jaw and both eyes swollen nearly shut. That is what happens when you deviate from name/rank/number and actively resist.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

ews48 - So, it’s fair to blame a 50 year old agricultural policy on the liberals but not this on Bush?

What are you talking about here?

lik,

No one expects you to understand what ews is saying, since ews obviously doesn’t either.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Persia delenda est.
Latin: “Persia (modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rob, not to rain on the party, but what the Guardian wrote is false and not supported by the report they are quoting. I’m specifically referring to, “It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.”

I read through the report, it never states this. The hapless journalists at the Guardian are apparently unable to comprehend English. Here’s what the report actually states:

40. In 1998, SIS believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama Bin Laden. Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the U.S., SIS sought Ministerial approval. This was given, provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment. In the event, insufficient intelligence was obtained and therefore the operation could not proceed.

The operation didn’t proceed due to lack of intelligence, not due to lack of assurances from the CIA.

I think it’s fair to point out, though, that the rendition program started under Clinton, specifically in 1995 when they ramped up the program. However, the report seems to distinguish between different types of rendition, “Rendition to Justice, “Rendition to Detainment”, “Military Renditions”, and “Extraordinary Rendition”.

Clinton apparently did not, according to this report, make use of “Extraordinary Rendition” since this involves moving terrorist suspects outside US jurisdiction where there is a real threat of torture or inhumane treatment.

"outside US jurisdiction where there is a real threat of torture or inhumane treatment.” Which is exactly why I support it. Sub-human terrorist scum want to kill women and children in the name of their God, Satan, we should be torturing them simply as punishment. Long, slow, agonizingly painful deaths are what they have earned. We should be giving it to them.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

I could give a flying “F” if they shoot him in the knee or drowned him. This should stop them from extracting a terror suspect/thug. If they cancelled it because of lack of intel that is a totally different deal.

check out Goon’s World

Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck

From what I have learned, Clinton could have had Bin Laden at times on a silver platter, but turned the offers down. Here is a web-address to one story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/839304/posts

I am not sure if it is okay to put links/web-addresses into a post because I am new here. So please if it isn’t okay, just let me know and I won’t do it again.

Debra…