Not as ridiculous and shameful as taking evidence that torture did NOT work, and that standard interrogation DID work - years later, adding in about 2 metric tons of speculation -> and pronouncing it as evidence that....HEY TORTURE PROBABLY WORKED AFTER ALL! Incredible.
poor basso Senate Intelligence Chair: Information That Led To Bin Laden’s Killing Did Not Come From Torture Today, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) rejected these assertions. She was asked by a reporter whether the intelligence that led to the killing was the result of waterboarding and other harsh treatment of detainees. She responded:
I'm happy for what was done and appreciate all the hard work that went into it...Being an American, there is always something in the back of my mind that screams conspiracy...I know... but I'd like to see pictures, etc as proof...the reports just read as a well scripted movie...call me crazy...
Who's to say th eprevious waterboarding didn't make him more willing to talk later? The fact is, we simply can't say. Also, what if ksm or al libi had been tried in nyc, and it came out in testimony they'd given up al-kuwati, thereby alerting OBL?
Then the terrorists would have to get a time machine and go back and stop the Obama plot to get Osama! Like clockwork - all good basso-torture theories are useless without a flux capacitator and suitable quantities of plutonium
Because we know that he gave valuable information before being waterboarded and after it stopped. We know that once waterboarding started he gave false leads, and stopped being useful. What we can say is that the useful information all came with standard interrogation techniques.
In that case then why does every American President since Nixon go through with making the "One China" proclamation when in fact we don't actually support a one China policy and by arming Taiwan make it virtually impossible to have One China? This is what diplomacy is about, that often you don't say what you are going to do even if it is obvious you are going to do it. The US does it all the time as do most other countries. For one many in Pakistan actually support OBL and it is difficult for them to publicly go along with an invasion to take him out. You are also ignoring plausible deniability on the part of Pakistan. To appease their population they can say they weren't aware of what was happening, which is what it seems like they are doing in their rhetoric and why it is so muddled. Leaving that aside it is just standard diplomacy that you don't threaten invading an ally. Honestly I find your line of argument just to be Obama infatuation when previously much praise of Obama was about how diplomatic and carefully he speaks. This statement went against that and I have no doubt at all that it was meant to just make him look tough on national security issues during the election. Really? You really don't think that given the same intel McCain wouldn't have gone after OBL? We are talking about a guy who criticized GW Bush for allowing OBL to escape at Tora Bora. Honestly you aren't that naive. It is a slap in the face to an ally. If you don't understand that you don't understand a lot of diplomacy.
Who's to say W didn't cheat on Laura with a bunch of goats? The fact is, we simply don't know if he got drunk and molested goats. We can't even say that goats were not secretly allowed in the WH like some guys were. We just don't know. Could have happened. But we can make a more than reasonable assumption that Bush never did the nasty with goats.
We don't know that If China moved in to exert their control over Taiwan that we would militarily intervene. So proclaiming we would is a shift. Also as a matter of America's best interest Pakistan doesn't supply the same amount of cheap labor and goods as China so that would also play a role. In addition China isn't possibly allowing the number one terrorist in the world to live in its borders. Those factor in to diplomacy as well, yes? Obama never threatened to invade an ally. Nor did he invade an ally on the night they went in after Osama. We carried out a strike at a specific target inside Pakistani borders. As to the first point about plausible deniability that doesn't change whether Obama says he'll go after Obama or just does it. There is no change there at all. And for those in the nation that are supportive of OBL, Pakistani govt. being at odds with the US would be a good thing, not a bad one. So speaking about the operation isn't bad on that front either. There are times when diplomacy serves a purpose. Speaking out about what happened in Pakistan ahead of time would serve no purpose. Doing something which wouldn't serve a purpose isn't really effective diplomacy. I have no idea what McCain would have done. He might have bombed or handled it differently. I only know what McCain said ahead of time. It's not any more of a slap than actually carrying out the operation. Surely you understand that. It would be a slap if we said it with no intent of actually doing it, but if we really were going to act, then it isn't any different than carrying out the operation.
Here is some info: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/03/Bin-Laden-not-killed-in-firefight/UPI-87081304424315/
I'll post the first couple of links that come up. If those don't work search the threads where I've posted them and talked about them before. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2009/05/13/soufan-waterboarding013.html http://open.salon.com/blog/david_danzig/2009/05/13/fbi_interrogator_waterboarding_does_not_work
