Zero, you might as well just move this bad boy over to the Back Alley before the fireworks start. Love ya brother!

I can't believe one of the good normal Americans hasn't brought this topic up already, but I was just wondering if Bush, Cheney, and members of the CIA will finally be brought up on the war crimes they've been hiding from for years?

---

People want to believe that this country is above "torture". But in reality they are just being naïve. "Torture" has been going on and part of the country for as long as it has been a country. As long as people are able to go through the day in relative safety, they don't care or want to know what may or may not have been done to provide that level of safety. But when they do hear, they want to scream about it and condemn the actions so at night they can sleep better.

There is nothing I would not do, to protect my family, and what I would do to protect this country and the people in it, isn't much less.

When people are around, we want that guard dog to be nice and friendly, but once we close the door we want it to do what it takes to protect us.

---

Nothing new. Every administration has authorized the same over the years. The Armed Forces and covert organizations have done so sanctioned or not since at least the Spanish American War maybe even before that.

---

Yeah, yeah - if that were Obama they would have crucified him already. Case in point - Benghazi; Bush had around 11 Benghazi's in his eight years, and nobody batted an eye. They've wasted what $50 million on hearings on Benghazi? I say public executions for Bush and Cheney just to even things out and prove we aren't a country filled with right wing bigots. Those two are going to burn in hell anyway, might as well just speed things up.

---

First of all, I'll call your bluff about those "11 Benghazi's" during the Bush years. Kindly cite a few of them, if in fact any such thing exists.

Secondly, on the contrary regarding Obama, I and other right thinking Americans would have and indeed do praise Obama for one (and virtually only one) aspect of his sick administration: his dealing with the terrorist enemy - drone strikes, killing bin Laden (although he had little to do with it, he at least didn't sabotage the operation), not closing Guantanamo, and presumably continuing to let the CIA, etc. do what is necessary - interrogations, etc. to keep the country safe.

As for this report, I see it as the Democrat Party's pissy revenge against the American people for kicking their lame asses out of power in the 2014 Congressional elections. I would say they recklessly exposed our patriots who have been in the front lines of the War on Terror to harm, except, I doubt it was a matter of recklessness; I think it was intentional - bordering on treason. As for the content of the report, what they say our people did to those poor unfortunate God damned Muslim terrorists, I say, I HOPE we tortured the shit out of them - literally and figuratively. Aside from the fact that the interrogation tactics undoubtedly yielded a huge amount of information that saved the lives of many Americans, my own point of view is that ANYONE who presumes to stand up against America and tries to kill our people deserves the harshest extremes of pain and suffering - death, but definitely not quickly.

Now I will sit back and see what our resident America-hater has to say about this, as well as anyone else who is namby pamby enough to be upset over the prospect - past, present, and future - of a "no limits" policy when it comes to dealing pain to our terrorist enemies.

---

You're one thing Texas, entertaining.

I see you didn't even bother bringing up Bush or Cheney because those losers can't be defended. They went to war on a flimsy reason that ended up being a lie, just in order to control oil. Well, they put our country into a financial shithole that Barry has somehow turned around - with extreme obstructionism from the bigoted "good normal American" Koch suckers you call your legislators. What an appalling group of bought and paid for shitheads.

Anyway, kiss Barry's ass next time you look at your 401K's - they've rebounded. How about we keep taxing the rich, the Clinton/Obama way and retire that horrible trickle down system invented by greedy, appalling, bigoted men - unwilling to share the wealth of our country. You Republicans really are a sick, disgusting group of people.

Good day, and Merry Christmas. I'd say Happy Holidays, but I know how angry you Leviticus Christians get and feel about that greeting.

Oh yeah, as requested:


January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

Stone Bush and Cheney to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL You dicks all owe the black man and apology!!!!!!!!! Where'd Gunny run too? Did I cause him to go on another bender?

---

"Fact"? "Undoubtedly"? I dunno. Which specific terrorist acts were prevented?

I understand that terrorism changes a lot of the rules. And I have no problem in terminating with extreme prejudice those who have demonstrated themselves terrorists (see, e.g., bin Laden). But on the other hand, this country was founded on particular notions regarding the burden of proof. And it bothers me very much when we as citizens in our fears are too easily willing to go along with state-advocated shifts of that burden.

I am not particularly bothered when a military interrogator gets nasty and stretches the Bill of Rights "too far," but I am very much bothered when a elected politician, or worse, a political appointee like, say, Rumsfeld, advocates the necessity. Because those politicians and appointees never actually actually have to do the dirty work of interrogation; and if public opinion gets too negative, they can always play Pontius Pilate and then hide the details beneath a cloak of "national security" and "executive orders."

---

I know driving sober has prevented me from getting into accidents. But since the accidents never happened, it is impossible to say which specific accident was prevented.

---

Do you really think like this? That's like thinking about the children you could have had with the girls you didn't fuck! And for guys like Zero and me - that's a lot of disappointed girls - and children never born.

---

If you are interrogating to solve a crime already occurred, IMO there is no justification for otherwise unconstitutional interrogation methods.

On the other hand if you (or, rather the people at Gitmo or the people like Rumsfeld who argue about the need for such methods) are interrogating to prevent a crime, then *they* should be able to say which terrorist plot(s) were averted. You and I can't, of course, unless they go public with their successes. But if *they've* got them, why can't they?

And, please, don't give me that national security BS either. If there's a plot averted, there's evidence other than pictures of bad guys (or good guy interrogator).

IMO, if you want to override the constitutional protections in the name of a preventing a real threat, then you damn well better be able to show an actual threat averted at some point.

IMO.

---