oh well
- Thread starter RAYMOND
- Start date
I wish we could waterboard the whole Obama administration, it is only a metter of time until Al Qaeda comes back to say hello to us here in the states.
You mean the Surge didn't work? I thought we beat them in Iraq? Are you saying we didn't win?
It appears that O felt handcuffed by the scum who run the ACLU.
link
CIA objections slowed torture memos release
AP ? FILE - In this April 15, 2009 file photo, Attorney General Eric Holder addresses a dinner marking the ?
WASHINGTON ? Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.
Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called "torture memos" would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.
President Barack Obama ultimately overruled those concerns after internal discussions that intensified in the weeks after the former directors intervened. The memos were released Thursday.
Obama's personal involvement grew as the decision neared, and he even personally led a National Security Council session on the matter, said four senior administration officials.
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked with Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the CIA directors' opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process.
"It wasn't a matter of, it was a go and then the CIA directors weighed in and it slowed things down," Axelrod said Friday. "The fact is that he gathered all the facts throughout the process."
The memos detailed the legal rationales that senior Bush administration lawyers drew up authorizing the CIA to use simulated drowning and other harsh techniques on terror detainees.
Obama gave the matter "the appropriate reflection," Axelrod said. He said Obama's deliberations revolved around "the issue of national security versus the rule of law," and amounted to "one of the most profound issues the president of the United States has to deal with."
On March 18, the Justice Department told CIA Director Leon Panetta ? as he was leaving for a foreign trip ? that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said.
Panetta told Attorney General Eric Holder and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the memos' release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse. Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said.
The Justice Department also informed other senior CIA leaders of the decision to release the memos, and, as a courtesy, told former agency directors.
Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would hurt the agency's ability to interrogate prisoners in the future. They also said the move would further tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials' legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services' trust in the CIA's ability to protect national security secrets, current and former officials said.
The four former directors immediately protested to the White House, officials said. The enhanced interrogation procedures outlined in the memos had been approved on Tenet's watch during the Bush administration.
On March 19, the Justice Department requested a two-week delay in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that asked for release of the memos. Justice officials told the court dealing with that lawsuit that it was considering releasing the memos voluntarily.
Two weeks later, Justice lawyers told the court the memos would come out on or before April 16.
As Obama mulled over the intelligence community's concerns and clashing arguments from the Justice Department that the memos needed to be released, the president's contacts, meetings and phone conversations on the Bush-era memos grew so numerous over the past month, officials said, that advisers lost count.
In addition to the NSC meeting that he chaired, Obama also held high-level sessions with Holder and other Cabinet members.
He also reached into lower rungs of the government for advice and even talked to an unidentified NSC official from the Bush administration, the officials said.
Inside the White House, according to aides, Obama expressed concerns that releasing the memos could threaten ongoing intelligence operations as well as American officials. He also echoed the CIA chiefs' worries about U.S. relationships with always-skittish foreign intelligence services.
The Justice Department argued that the ACLU lawsuit would in the end force the administration to release the documents anyway, officials said.
Obama eventually agreed. The administration decided it would be better to make the release voluntarily, so as to not be seen as being forced to do so, the officials said.
Obama also decided that the least redacting possible should be done, White House officials said. Thus the only items blacked out included names of U.S. employees or foreign services or items related to techniques still in use.
Still, CIA officials needed reassurance about the decision, the officials said.
Obama took the unusual step of accompanying his decision with a personal letter to CIA employees. He also devoted a big share of his public statement to saying ? and repeating ? that he believed strongly in keeping intelligence operations secret and operations about them classified. And he said he would not apologize for doing so in the future.
link
CIA objections slowed torture memos release
AP ? FILE - In this April 15, 2009 file photo, Attorney General Eric Holder addresses a dinner marking the ?
WASHINGTON ? Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.
Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called "torture memos" would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to detail internal government discussions.
President Barack Obama ultimately overruled those concerns after internal discussions that intensified in the weeks after the former directors intervened. The memos were released Thursday.
Obama's personal involvement grew as the decision neared, and he even personally led a National Security Council session on the matter, said four senior administration officials.
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked with Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the CIA directors' opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process.
"It wasn't a matter of, it was a go and then the CIA directors weighed in and it slowed things down," Axelrod said Friday. "The fact is that he gathered all the facts throughout the process."
The memos detailed the legal rationales that senior Bush administration lawyers drew up authorizing the CIA to use simulated drowning and other harsh techniques on terror detainees.
Obama gave the matter "the appropriate reflection," Axelrod said. He said Obama's deliberations revolved around "the issue of national security versus the rule of law," and amounted to "one of the most profound issues the president of the United States has to deal with."
On March 18, the Justice Department told CIA Director Leon Panetta ? as he was leaving for a foreign trip ? that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said.
Panetta told Attorney General Eric Holder and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the memos' release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse. Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said.
The Justice Department also informed other senior CIA leaders of the decision to release the memos, and, as a courtesy, told former agency directors.
Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would hurt the agency's ability to interrogate prisoners in the future. They also said the move would further tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials' legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services' trust in the CIA's ability to protect national security secrets, current and former officials said.
The four former directors immediately protested to the White House, officials said. The enhanced interrogation procedures outlined in the memos had been approved on Tenet's watch during the Bush administration.
On March 19, the Justice Department requested a two-week delay in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union that asked for release of the memos. Justice officials told the court dealing with that lawsuit that it was considering releasing the memos voluntarily.
Two weeks later, Justice lawyers told the court the memos would come out on or before April 16.
As Obama mulled over the intelligence community's concerns and clashing arguments from the Justice Department that the memos needed to be released, the president's contacts, meetings and phone conversations on the Bush-era memos grew so numerous over the past month, officials said, that advisers lost count.
In addition to the NSC meeting that he chaired, Obama also held high-level sessions with Holder and other Cabinet members.
He also reached into lower rungs of the government for advice and even talked to an unidentified NSC official from the Bush administration, the officials said.
Inside the White House, according to aides, Obama expressed concerns that releasing the memos could threaten ongoing intelligence operations as well as American officials. He also echoed the CIA chiefs' worries about U.S. relationships with always-skittish foreign intelligence services.
The Justice Department argued that the ACLU lawsuit would in the end force the administration to release the documents anyway, officials said.
Obama eventually agreed. The administration decided it would be better to make the release voluntarily, so as to not be seen as being forced to do so, the officials said.
Obama also decided that the least redacting possible should be done, White House officials said. Thus the only items blacked out included names of U.S. employees or foreign services or items related to techniques still in use.
Still, CIA officials needed reassurance about the decision, the officials said.
Obama took the unusual step of accompanying his decision with a personal letter to CIA employees. He also devoted a big share of his public statement to saying ? and repeating ? that he believed strongly in keeping intelligence operations secret and operations about them classified. And he said he would not apologize for doing so in the future.
Believe thats what your boy said--wasn't it.
--and while on topic --today is 2 year anniversary of another liberal icons astute proclaimations--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDOAmJYFFA
The only horse I have in this race is truth. If the Surge worked and we won, as YOU claim, then why do we have to worry about future attacks by al=Qeada. Afterall, YOU said we won. Did we win or didn't we?
Using the surge as a talking point is silly to begin with. I am pretty sure the majority of times in history a occupying nation has increased it's level of soldiers stability has increased. The real truth will come when we reduce our presence and/or leave. Are some of you really that simple minded?
I've been beating that drum for, oh, 6 years now. Don't bother.
We 'won' in less time than it took Janet Reno to 'win' against the cult in Waco. Certain elements used to like to bust that one out.
Now for some reason it's the 'surge' that was the winning move.
None of this means shit unless we leave behind a stable, America friendly, lasting democracy.
Since you had to ask twice I have to assume you really don't know answer.
A-Q exists every where Muslims exist--not just Iraq. You name the country where muslims reside and I'll get you a headline on terrorist activities against that country not just U.S.
Sooooo why was Iraq so important to your boy when Saddam didn't like AQ and they did not exist in Iraq?
I'm just trying to follow your logic here...
If our reason for occupying Iraq is to destroy Al-Queda, and as you stated "A-Q exists every where Muslims exist", then shouldn't we, at the very least, be occupying all 48 countries in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Indonesia where Islam is the majority religion?
Then once we've established occupying forces in those 48 countries, should we not concentrate our efforts on all remaining countries where Islam is a minority religion?
If you're right, we're gonna be busy for a long time. :shrug:
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
How about anywhere but Greenland? DTB's gonna be busy gathering headlines for a long time. :142smilie
I've answered your question several times
Maybe you ought to ask UBL--you get similiar answer.
Remember he prociamed Iraq as central theatre for war on terror and pounded his chest as he said he would drive us out--saying we did not have stomach for it.
He was half right--fortunely GW and our troops got job done despite the other halfs attemps to prove UBL correct.
Resulting in humiliating defeat for both--UBL and cut and run liberals.
The winners our troops-Iraq-democracy--and freedom to millions.
In events of adversity--everyone runs
--only diff is--character will define which direction.
Can we get a another:mj07: from you and a :142smilie from Smurph.
Maybe you ought to ask UBL--you get similiar answer.
Remember he prociamed Iraq as central theatre for war on terror and pounded his chest as he said he would drive us out--saying we did not have stomach for it.
He was half right--fortunely GW and our troops got job done despite the other halfs attemps to prove UBL correct.
Resulting in humiliating defeat for both--UBL and cut and run liberals.
The winners our troops-Iraq-democracy--and freedom to millions.
In events of adversity--everyone runs
--only diff is--character will define which direction.
Can we get a another:mj07: from you and a :142smilie from Smurph.
Last edited:
I've answered your question several times
Maybe you ought to ask UBL--you get similiar answer.
Remember he prociamed Iraq as central theatre for war on terror and pounded his chest as he said he would drive us out--saying we did not have stomach for it.
He was half right--fortunely GW and our troops got job done despite the other halfs attemps to prove UBL correct.
Resulting in humiliating defeat for both--UBL and cut and run liberals.
The winners our troops-Iraq-democracy--and freedom to millions.
In events of adversity--everyone runs
--only diff is--character will define which direction.
Can we get a another:mj07: from you and a :142smilie from Smurph.
You are such a tool! Of course UBL said he wanted us there. It was a wet dream for him. He had us burning up our resources in a place that meant nothing to him. In short guys like you and Bush played right into his hand. So, although I dio not think it is funny at all I will give you a :mj07: for being so stupid!
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I've answered your question several times
Maybe you ought to ask UBL--you get similiar answer.
Remember he prociamed Iraq as central theatre for war on terror and pounded his chest as he said he would drive us out--saying we did not have stomach for it.
He was half right--fortunely GW and our troops got job done despite the other halfs attemps to prove UBL correct.
Resulting in humiliating defeat for both--UBL and cut and run liberals.
The winners our troops-Iraq-democracy--and freedom to millions.
In events of adversity--everyone runs
--only diff is--character will define which direction.
Can we get a another:mj07: from you and a :142smilie from Smurph.
Thousands of our troops died and for what? The place will be a mess after we leave and how much did we spend over there?
who`s disputing that the surge was successful?...that it turned the tide...violence is down dramatically.....yes we increased troop levels...it seemed to run al qaeda out of iraq...and "encouraged"some of the radical sunni to our side...
who cares?... it worked...
was there some rule that said we had to use insufficient troop levels to accomplish our goals?...
that`s ridiculous..
what`s the point?...
who cares?... it worked...
was there some rule that said we had to use insufficient troop levels to accomplish our goals?...
that`s ridiculous..
what`s the point?...
Last edited:
matter of fact,obama(who stated that the surge would fail in iraq),is still so convinced that the surge failed,that he`s doing the same thing in "his" war....
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4&sp=0
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jim-hightower/obama-s-triple-surge-into-afghanistan.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...uiet-troop-surge-afghanistan-stirs-questions/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482632399795061.html
/:lol:
http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?viewkey=0861ff3eabea1ceb73e4&sp=0
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jim-hightower/obama-s-triple-surge-into-afghanistan.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/fir...uiet-troop-surge-afghanistan-stirs-questions/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123482632399795061.html
/:lol:
