Lying Neocons revising history

[NOVA]

Its so much fun to pwn you over and over and over.....and all because of your own co-operation....


Leon Panetta......Peter King statements....

http://radioviceonline.com/leon-panetta-to-brian-williams-yes-waterboarding-led-to-the-kill-of-obl/


===========

Rumsfeld statements (transcript)
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...aterboarding-played-major-role-al-qaeda-intel

RUMSFELD: I think it's certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that the CIA Director Panetta today indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded?
HANNITY: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUMSFELD: Is that correct?
HANNITY: Yes.


RUMSFELD: Well, that's my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let's be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn't facing the truth. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. He looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded.


HANNITY: Yes. Well, there were only three people.
RUMSFELD: Right.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...layed-major-role-al-qaeda-intel#ixzz1LasbINsz


Now folks...don't forget to pay strict attention to the "chronoloy of the post" in this ongoing rout by bravo....hahaha
​

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And lending to poor neighborhoods had nothing to do with the crash of our economy. But those facts are not convenient for a bunch of faux news brainwashed right wing simps.

Actually, poor lending standards most certainly had a LOT to do with the crash of the economy. Lending to those who could not afford the loan was the mistake. This was obviously not restricted to low income neighborhoods by any means, but it most certainly played a role.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Once again, the Super Freak-ing intellectually dishonest clown tries to bend reality. No one "encourcaged" anyone, bunky....the LAW simply stated that the lending to low income white folks had to be equally done for black, hispanic and asian folks. The banks just decided to run a scam to fill their pockets and create a smoke screen tainted with buzz words and innuendos certain to have dopes like the Super Freak take them at their word.

But what else should be expected from people desperately trying to prop up the Shrub's bogus legacy regarding Bin Laden DESPITE documented facts to the contrary.

The only intellectual dishonesty is on your part. Both Clinton and Bush administrations pushed for more lending to low income neighborhoods. Both championed the 'more home ownership than ever before' chant. Perhaps you have heard of the Community Reinvestment Act???

From wiki.....

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.). To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.).[6]

That said, I do not disagree that banks played a large role in the meltdown. The repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999 removed the firewalls that used to be in place between investment banks and retail banks. This led to an explosion of CDO's being issued with little to no regard for actual ability of borrowers to pay back the debt because the banks passed the liability on to unsuspecting buyers with the help of the fraudulent practices of the credit rating agencies.

AS I stated in the post you quoted, Frank's being gay has NOTHING to do with the comments he made in regard to Fannie and Freddie and RACE had nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged banks to lend to loan income neighborhoods.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Once again, our Super Freak-ing Dunce babbles on as if his supposition and conjecture covers his willful ignorance and intellectual cowardice. Truth his, this Super Freaking Dunce did NOT read the source material I provided, because like all good little neocon parrots, he just read the source name and turned a blind eye will squawking the neocon mantras, as we see him do here.

Had the SF fool actually read what I put forth, and the coupled it with the link he provided, he would see how Panetta is playing word games to cover his ass as to using torture. The official time line as given by the people who were there and testified, showed that KSM was tortured numerous times and was telling NOTHING....but nearly a YEAR later was subjected to standard interrogation techniques and gave up the lead to the bin Laden courier. The other tortured gained information DID not give that couriers name.....as to whether there was other useful information given is pretty much taken on faith from the CIA.

Once again our resident retard has shown his inability to READ what I wrote and to COMPREHEND it. Instead he creates one straw man after another to try and beat down. The sad part is, his own straw men keep kicking his ass.

I read both your links. AS I stated, the argument IS being tossed around. Period. There is NO denying that. There is one article after another of people saying the EIT worked and one article after another saying it didn't. AS I STATED, and the resident retard ignored, I DO NOT HAVE A POSITION on whether it worked or not. I simply stated that there were people arguing/debating the issue. Which is FACT.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Translation: Our Super Freak-ing Dunce isn't mature enough to admit his errors or ignorance.

Translation: "yes, I am too ignorant to understand what Superfreak wrote and will continue trying to create straw men to attribute to him"

 

[NOVA]

Its really amazing.....do you think that between his arrogance, his ignorance, and his stupidity, he really doesn't know hes getting his ass kicked on a regular basis....
that his silly rants of neo-con, birther, tea-bagger, etc. just make his persona as an asshole hack that much more obvious....hes kind of pathetic in a way.......

For those of you that came from the same AOL site as him, did he fancy himself a BMOC on that board ?....I get that impression

Here, hes on a par with Topspin.....

 

[Bfgrn]

Actually, poor lending standards most certainly had a LOT to do with the crash of the economy. Lending to those who could not afford the loan was the mistake. This was obviously not restricted to low income neighborhoods by any means, but it most certainly played a role.

Poor lending practices (predatory) played a huge role, but not to low income and first time buyers. And Fannie and Freddie were not to blame either. The Community Investment Act was not the culprit. It was middle class and wealthy buyers who were mostly speculators.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Poor lending practices (predatory) played a huge role, but not to low income and first time buyers. And Fannie and Freddie were not to blame either. The Community Investment Act was not the culprit. It was middle class and wealthy buyers who were mostly speculators.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

1) The above is simply absurd. The 'wealthy' are not the ones being foreclosed upon. It is low income and moderate income families/individuals that are losing their homes.

2) It most certainly was in part due to the CRA.

3) Fannie and Freddie dramatically increased their ownership of 'sub prime debt' (which is again... NOT .... the wealthy)

4) yes, lending practices were predatory in some cases. In others it was buyers who were taking on too much debt relative to their income. Both the borrowers and lenders share blame. (along with the government and investment banks)

5) Do note.... even when the dems had super majorities, they did little to address the issue.

6) Which leads me back to my original point to you.... Frank's comments about Fannie and Freddie had NOTHING to do with his being gay as you insinuated. Blame is being dished out, not based on RACE as you insinuated. Two points that you fail to address.

 

[NOVA]

Poor lending practices (predatory) played a huge role, but not to low income and first time buyers. And Fannie and Freddie were not to blame either. The Community Investment Act was not the culprit. It was middle class and wealthy buyers who were mostly speculators.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN

Getting your news from sources like the Daily KOS, HuffingtonPost, MoveOn, NPR, MSNBC, etc. that makes perfect sense.....ignoring the fact that its perfectly bogus bullshit.....

I could go on but its really pointless to attempt to educate fools....

 

[Bfgrn]

1) The above is simply absurd. The 'wealthy' are not the ones being foreclosed upon. It is low income and moderate income families/individuals that are losing their homes.

2) It most certainly was in part due to the CRA.

3) Fannie and Freddie dramatically increased their ownership of 'sub prime debt' (which is again... NOT .... the wealthy)

4) yes, lending practices were predatory in some cases. In others it was buyers who were taking on too much debt relative to their income. Both the borrowers and lenders share blame. (along with the government and investment banks)

5) Do note.... even when the dems had super majorities, they did little to address the issue.

6) Which leads me back to my original point to you.... Frank's comments about Fannie and Freddie had NOTHING to do with his being gay as you insinuated. Blame is being dished out, not based on RACE as you insinuated. Two points that you fail to address.

YES, the wealthy were foreclosed on, but they had the luxury of being able to walk away from a bad debt. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas.

This was brought on by wealthy bankers and wealthy buyers. I was covering all of northern Florida for my company when the bottom fell out, the state of Florida was one of the hardest hit because half of the new home were being bought by wealthy people speculating. They had no intention of ever living in the homes, they were using it as a quick money making scheme.

Why are all you right wingers so fucking ignorant? EVERYTHING you believe is nothing but bullshit social propaganda spoon fed to you by the Fox News, right wing talking heads and every other mouthpiece for the elite. You constantly call people morons, but you don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground!

Educate yourself MORON...


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

 

[Rune]

Its really amazing.....do you think that between his arrogance, his ignorance, and his stupidity, he really doesn't know hes getting his ass kicked on a regular basis....
that his silly rants of neo-con, birther, tea-bagger, etc. just make his persona as an asshole hack that much more obvious....hes kind of pathetic in a way.......

For those of you that came from the same AOL site as him, did he fancy himself a BMOC on that board ?....I get that impression

Here, hes on a par with Topspin.....

When did you begin speaking of yourself in third person?

 

[signalmankenneth]

When Obama was a candidate, he stated in no uncertain terms that he would make it a priority within the intelligence community to get Bin Laden dead or alive!

Well, he did it. And now the neocons/teabaggers/oathers/birthers are just losing their fucking minds in an effort to tell the American people (and the world) that Obama was merely filling in the blanks that the Shrub put in motion during his 8 year term. My fellow Long Islander, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), the Homeland Security Congressional rooster (chairman) tells an outlandish tale to Bill O'Reilly that has been parroted on every major neocon pundit broadcast, TV and newspaper. Only problem is, King is flat out wrong! Check this out.


Rep. Peter King: We Should Still Use Waterboarding Because That’s How We Captured Bin Laden


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/03/peter-king-more-waterboarding/


What's astounding is that AFTER fmr. Secty of State Rumsfeld CONTRADICTS King, King is STILL fronting his BS, using such vague references as "people in the know" and "boots on the ground".

 

[Taichiliberal]

Its so much fun to pwn you over and over and over.....and all because of your own co-operation....


Leon Panetta......Peter King statements....

http://radioviceonline.com/leon-panetta-to-brian-williams-yes-waterboarding-led-to-the-kill-of-obl/




===========

Rumsfeld statements (transcript)
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...aterboarding-played-major-role-al-qaeda-intel

RUMSFELD: I think it's certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that the CIA Director Panetta today indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded?
HANNITY: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUMSFELD: Is that correct?
HANNITY: Yes.


RUMSFELD: Well, that's my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let's be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn't facing the truth. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. He looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded.


HANNITY: Yes. Well, there were only three people.
RUMSFELD: Right.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...layed-major-role-al-qaeda-intel#ixzz1LasbINsz


Now folks...don't forget to pay strict attention to the "chronoloy of the post" in this ongoing rout by bravo....hahaha
​

And here are the little details that Rummy and Hannity left out.....fortunately the New York Times didn't:


.... Prisoners in American custody told stories of a trusted courier. When the Americans ran the man’s pseudonym past two top-level detainees — the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed; and Al Qaeda’s operational chief, Abu Faraj al-Libi — the men claimed never to have heard his name. That raised suspicions among interrogators that the two detainees were lying and that the courier probably was an important figure.


..... Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

..... ation Cannonball, a [2005] bureaucratic reshuffling ... placed more C.I.A. case officers on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan. With more agents in the field, the C.I.A. finally got the courier’s family name. With that, they turned to one of their greatest investigative tools — the National Security Agency began intercepting telephone calls and e-mail messages between the man’s family and anyone inside Pakistan. From there they got his full name. Last July, Pakistani agents working for the C.I.A. spotted him driving his vehicle near Peshawar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html



Bravo is one stupid man, folks. Faux News and Hannity gave eager neocon lapdogs like Bravo EXACTLY what they wanted to hear by carefully leaving out certain FACTS and DETAILS, and Rummy is essentially trying to cover his ass and the Shrub legacy, which Obama just blew out of the water. Bottom line: Rumsfeld had TWICE offered his resignation to the Shrub for his incompetence....so his flip/flopping and hedging here is no surprise. But the WHOLE truth is hard to hide, much less ignore.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, the Super Freak-ing intellectually dishonest clown tries to bend reality. No one "encourcaged" anyone, bunky....the LAW simply stated that the lending to low income white folks had to be equally done for black, hispanic and asian folks. The banks just decided to run a scam to fill their pockets and create a smoke screen tainted with buzz words and innuendos certain to have dopes like the Super Freak take them at their word.

But what else should be expected from people desperately trying to prop up the Shrub's bogus legacy regarding Bin Laden DESPITE documented facts to the contrary.

The only intellectual dishonesty is on your part. Both Clinton and Bush administrations pushed for more lending to low income neighborhoods. Both championed the 'more home ownership than ever before' chant. Perhaps you have heard of the Community Reinvestment Act???

From wiki.....

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]

The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.). To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions (Section 804.).[6]

That said, I do not disagree that banks played a large role in the meltdown. The repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999 removed the firewalls that used to be in place between investment banks and retail banks. This led to an explosion of CDO's being issued with little to no regard for actual ability of borrowers to pay back the debt because the banks passed the liability on to unsuspecting buyers with the help of the fraudulent practices of the credit rating agencies.

AS I stated in the post you quoted, Frank's being gay has NOTHING to do with the comments he made in regard to Fannie and Freddie and RACE had nothing to do with the Community Reinvestment Act that encouraged banks to lend to loan income neighborhoods.

Since I assumed we were both talking about the CRA, SF little jab means little. However, I stand corrected in that the word 'encouraged' was used in the statement of the Act itself,

It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.

However, the SF is wrong if he thinks race had nothing to do with the CRA. Observe:

REPORT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LENDING Pub. L. 102-550, title IX, Sec. 910, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3874, provided that: ''(a) In General. - Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this section (Oct. 28, 1992), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in consultation with the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the Chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, shall submit a report to the Congress comparing residential, small business, and commercial lending by insured depository institutions in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods to such lending in other neighborhoods. ''(b) Contents of Report. - The report required by subsection (a) shall - ''(1) compare the risks and returns of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods with the risks and returns of lending in other neighborhoods; ''(2) analyze the reasons for any differences in risk and return between low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods and other neighborhoods; and ''(3) if the risks of lending in low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods exceed the risks of lending in other neighborhoods, recommend ways of mitigating those risks.''
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/community/community/12c30.html


I made NO accusation against the SF regarding Sen. Frank......I just took him to task regarding his interjection of the CRA into the discussion. That being resolved, we can now get back to acknowledging the FACT that the neocon cabal and all it's sub-groups are just losing their freaking minds over the FACT that Obama succeeded where the Shrub failed....and that success pokes a major hole in the hot air balloon of the Shrub's "legacy".

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, our Super Freak-ing Dunce babbles on as if his supposition and conjecture covers his willful ignorance and intellectual cowardice. Truth is, this Super Freaking Dunce did NOT read the source material I provided, because like all good little neocon parrots, he just read the source name and turned a blind eye will squawking the neocon mantras, as we see him do here.

Had the SF fool actually read what I put forth, and the coupled it with the link he provided, he would see how Panetta is playing word games to cover his ass as to using torture. The official time line as given by the people who were there and testified, showed that KSM was tortured numerous times and was telling NOTHING....but nearly a YEAR later was subjected to standard interrogation techniques and gave up the lead to the bin Laden courier. The other tortured gained information DID not give that couriers name.....as to whether there was other useful information given is pretty much taken on faith from the CIA.

Once again our resident retard has shown his inability to READ what I wrote and to COMPREHEND it. Instead he creates one straw man after another to try and beat down. The sad part is, his own straw men keep kicking his ass.

Every blessed time some neocon parrot is proven factually wrong on a point, they squawk "straw man!" The only "straw man" here is the Super Freak trying to soft soap his backing of the "torture got Bin Laden" mantra from right wing.
I read both your links. AS I stated, the argument IS being tossed around. Period. There is NO denying that. There is one article after another of people saying the EIT worked and one article after another saying it didn't. AS I STATED, and the resident retard ignored, I DO NOT HAVE A POSITION on whether it worked or not. I simply stated that there were people arguing/debating the issue. Which is FACT.

The SF put forth the suggestion that tortured loosened up the subjects so that later less harsh methods were successful. That is clearly NOT part of the factual history here:

The Big Lie: Torture Got Bin Laden

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html

Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html

 

[NOVA]

the contradiction is that

King is asserting that waterboarding works because it gave us the intel to get Bin Laden.

Rumsfeld, the man in the know at the time, says NO, that did not happen.

......
King states/asserts/ alludes to that waterboarding was instrumental in leading to Bin Laden.

Rumsfeld said NO, it did not.

Leon Panetta......Peter King statements....

Rumfeld in his own words...

RUMSFELD: I think it's certainly is a reasonable idea. Is it correct that the CIA Director Panetta today indicated that one of the individuals who provided important information had in fact been waterboarded?
HANNITY: Yes. Yes. Yes.
RUMSFELD: Is that correct?
HANNITY: Yes.
RUMSFELD: Well, that's my understanding. And I think that anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let's be blunt, waterboarding, did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence, just isn't facing the truth. The facts are, General Mike Hayden came in, he had no connection with waterboarding anybody. He looked at all the evidence and concluded that a major fraction of the intelligence in our country on al Qaeda came from individuals, the three, only three people who were waterboarded.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...layed-major-role-al-qaeda-intel#ixzz1LcVioIbw

And I submit that Leon Panetta is "the man in the know" , NOW, TODAY....it is Panetta that knows ALL the intelligence from beginning to end...not Rumsfeld, who is an outsider for the last 5 year......unless you can show us that Rumsfelf was called in to the CIA headquarters every day for the last 5 years...and briefed on the latest intell.

Sorry pinhead....you lose again.
And the the bullshit you posted in the last rant (#73)( is IRRELEVANT to the issue of Rumsfeld contradicting King....
​

 

[NOVA]

Notice folk, that when faced with the FACTS that prove him wrong, our intellectually impotent Bravo shoots blanks furiously...the SAME blanks.

Bravo feverishly avoids the FACT that the contradiction is that King is asserting that waterboarding works because it gave us the intel to get Bin Laden. Rumsfeld, the man in the know at the time, says NO, that did not happen.

Then I gave links to quotes from other folks in the know, on the ground at the time who back up Rumsfeld's statement and basically make Bravo look the fool. But Bravo, like the good little neocon parrot that he is, just squawks what he believes ad nauseum, wearing neocon blinders to everything else. Like King, Bravo just refuses to give Obama ANY credit, or that he succeeded where Bush failed. Appropo to this:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-Neocons-revising-history&p=809876#post809876

As I said, Bravo is one stupid man.

The SF put forth the suggestion that tortured loosened up the subjects so that later less harsh methods were successful. That is clearly NOT part of the factual history here:

The Big Lie: Torture Got Bin Laden

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html

Behind the Hunt for Bin Laden

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html

\\

Really pinhead...who do we believe.....Andrew Sullivan, left wing writer for the thedailybeast

OR

Leon Panetta, CIA Director appointed by President Obama




Maybe you were shaken alittle too much as a baby....

 

[Taichiliberal]

Bravo is a stupid man, folks. Bravo keeps repeating the same thing ad nauseum while ignoring all the little FACTS that are left out of the discussions his myopic intelligence perceives.

I rendered all Bravo's hoop-la useless here:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-Neocons-revising-history&p=811041#post811041


Bravo is too stupid to realize that one link is to the actual NY Times article, while the Daily Beast blog gives a summary of that information for the less patient.

As for Panetta, he was NOT the CIA chief in charge during the torturing and interrogating of KSM, as he did NOT come to the agency until 2009. Panetta can point to generalities, but the FACTS again and again point to NON-TORTURE as getting the couriers name linked to Bin Laden. A matter of history and fact that jokers like Bravo just can't/won't accept.

Back to the barstool with you, Bravo.

 

[NOVA]

Bravo is a stupid man, folks. Bravo keeps repeating the same thing ad nauseum while ignoring all the little FACTS that are left out of the discussions his myopic intelligence perceives.

I rendered all Bravo's hoop-la useless here:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-Neocons-revising-history&p=811041#post811041


Bravo is too stupid to realize that one link is to the actual NY Times article, while the Daily Beast blog gives a summary of that information for the less patient.

As for Panetta, he was NOT the CIA chief in charge during the torturing and interrogating of KSM, as he did NOT come to the agency until 2009. Panetta can point to generalities, but the FACTS again and again point to NON-TORTURE as getting the couriers name linked to Bin Laden. A matter of history and fact that jokers like Bravo just can't/won't accept.

Back to the barstool with you, Bravo.

How hilarious....you're like a tiny, tenacious, brain-damaged Chihuahua that keeps on yipping and yapping at the paws of a Saint Bernard .......utterly impotent except for the loud, annoying, yelping
.
.
.
:lol:

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bravo is a stupid man, folks. Bravo keeps repeating the same thing ad nauseum while ignoring all the little FACTS that are left out of the discussions his myopic intelligence perceives.

I rendered all Bravo's hoop-la useless here:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sho...041#post811041


Bravo is too stupid to realize that one link is to the actual NY Times article, while the Daily Beast blog gives a summary of that information for the less patient.

As for Panetta, he was NOT the CIA chief in charge during the torturing and interrogating of KSM, as he did NOT come to the agency until 2009. Panetta can point to generalities, but the FACTS again and again point to NON-TORTURE as getting the couriers name linked to Bin Laden. A matter of history and fact that jokers like Bravo just can't/won't accept.

Back to the barstool with you, Bravo.

How hilarious....you're like a tiny, tenacious, brain-damaged Chihuahua that keeps on yipping and yapping at the paws of a Saint Bernard .......utterly impotent except for the loud, annoying, yelping
.
.
.
:lol:

Whenver stupid people can't argue further based on facts and logic, they give responses like Bravo does here to try and cover their intellectual impotence.

Panetta is VERY careful to say "some" intel was derived through torture...but he NEVER directly says, "we got to Bin Laden based on information directly derived from torture. Panetta just gives a generalization of "collaborative effort"....a difference from blowhard Peter King's more adamant statements.

As the information released details (see NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html?_r=1) that information came from KSM when he went through regular interrogation techniques, because he gave up NOTHING after numerous torture sessions. Other detainees had been tortured and said they had heard about a courier, but when that info was given to KSM, he'd never heard of the guy they mentioned. The CIA had suspected there was a courier, but could NOT get the right name from detainees or KSM using torture.

A little fact that our chuckling barstool rummy Bravo, or our jumped up office boy Peter King just can't accept...so they just bluff and try to substitute supposition and conjecture for fact.

And now, let us watch our Bravo bumpkin repeat his previously addressed points ad nauseum, peppering his responses with the usual dodges, lies, and childish insults and ineffective bluster. I'll respond if he actually decides to debate the issue further in a rational manner.