Sign in to follow this  
badlatitude

Quote of the Day

Recommended Posts

Hear , hear .

 

The damage his lying is doing will last for decades .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So then do you agree or disagree with Glenn Greenwald and the New York Times that Brennan is actually a war criminal who worked for a war criminal?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/07/the-right-or-wrong-experience-for-the-job/by-nominating-john-brennan-obama-is-ignoring-war-crimes'

See, this is where I think Crab has some points about idealogical mind traps.  The same man who was vilified by liberals for years for signing off on torture and murder is the guy you quote today for assessing the risks of Trump.  If you're going to use him in this manner - holding him up as an appeal to authority -  you have to accept the whole man, not just the part you like today.

FWIW, I think this John Brennan - the guy quoted above - is actually the same John Brennan who served four presidents including Bush Jr.  I do think he's bright and I do think he's got good instincts, including in this case. 

I think the shots from Greenwald were just that - partisan shots meant to appeal to a specific body politic and make some money for himself (Greenwald) and the Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 you have to accept the whole man, not just the part you like today.

bull shit , I'll tell anyone including myself what their faults are .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

So then do you agree or disagree with Glenn Greenwald and the New York Times that Brennan is actually a war criminal who worked for a war criminal?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/07/the-right-or-wrong-experience-for-the-job/by-nominating-john-brennan-obama-is-ignoring-war-crimes'

See, this is where I think Crab has some points about idealogical mind traps.  The same man who was vilified by liberals for years for signing off on torture and murder is the guy you quote today for assessing the risks of Trump.  If you're going to use him in this manner - holding him up as an appeal to authority -  you have to accept the whole man, not just the part you like today.

FWIW, I think this John Brennan - the guy quoted above - is actually the same John Brennan who served four presidents including Bush Jr.  I do think he's bright and I do think he's got good instincts, including in this case. 

I think the shots from Greenwald were just that - partisan shots meant to appeal to a specific body politic and make some money for himself (Greenwald) and the Times.

I know and personally connect with Glenn Greenwald. That said, I also understand how rigid he is about some things. He is a very moral man who tolerates little from the hypocrisy he perceives. The CIA has done some pretty despicable things, we cannot change that, I see things slightly skewed and forgive some things that can't be avoided or used to bring an early end to something intolerant.

I use John Brennan, not for a moment of his professional life, but for the sum of his life. Like all beings we have faults and we can forgive. I prefer to choose the best of us with faults included, trying to find perfection has always been a disappointment to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

IMG_0628.jpg

Just another leftie hater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

I'll tell anyone including myself what their faults are .

plusse one                                      :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

So then do you agree or disagree with Glenn Greenwald and the New York Times

Your statement insinuates that Greenwald and The NY Times share this opinion. It’s Greenwald’s opinion. The Times doesn’t limit their opinion page to those they agree with. That would be the editorial page. 

Edit - perhaps you meant to say “in the New York Times”

Edited by Sean
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He meant to say NYT as he wants other to believe the Times means hard left  

031DC150-DEBE-4F18-9D63-90B68E0D175F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sean said:

Your statement insinuates that Greenwald and The NY Times share this opinion. It’s Greenwald’s opinion. The Times doesn’t limit their opinion page to those they agree with. That would be the editorial page. 

Edit - perhaps you meant to say “in the New York Times”

Actually, BL did a good job of pushing back on my critique (for which, he got a +1 from me!)

 

I'm DEFINITELY not going to get into the history of the NY Times and how their opinion of Brennan may or may not agree with Greenwald.  Yes, I understand the New York Times and similar news papers will, in their editorial section, run opinions that may agree or disagree with the general sentiments of the publisher or journalists expressing themselves therein.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gouvernail said:

He meant to say NYT as he wants other to believe the Times means hard left  

Actually, BL got my point exactly and defended his point admirably!

You're reply is just  silly :)  Burn your own strawmen - leave me out of it!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

bull shit , I'll tell anyone including myself what their faults are .

I would too - if I had any.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I know and personally connect with Glenn Greenwald. That said, I also understand how rigid he is about some things. He is a very moral man who tolerates little from the hypocrisy he perceives. The CIA has done some pretty despicable things, we cannot change that, I see things slightly skewed and forgive some things that can't be avoided or used to bring an early end to something intolerant.

I use John Brennan, not for a moment of his professional life, but for the sum of his life. Like all beings we have faults and we can forgive. I prefer to choose the best of us with faults included, trying to find perfection has always been a disappointment to me.

We haven't been hearing much from Glenn of late, and I suspect it's because he's smart enough to grasp just how easily he was played by "wikileaks", which is now known to all but surely have been a rather cleaver Russian operation. A classic Soviet-style trolling expedition for "useful idiots". Glenn is probably smart enough to see, now, that he played a key role in the handing over of Snowden to the Russians. 

  He would thereby aware of how easily he was used by true pros, and they were able to do it without breaking a sweat. Snowden was a naive kid, Glenn was supposed to be worldly-wise and imagined himself all that and a bag of chips. 

Snowden must live the rest of his life in Russia, highly likely.  That wouldn't have happened if Snowden had gone to a Sy Hersh or someone of like experience and intelligence. 

 A "Welcome to the majors, douchebag!" moment, huuuuugely.  

 Gonna take some time for him to put his rocked world back together again.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Actually, BL got my point exactly and defended his point admirably!

You're reply is just  silly :)  Burn your own strawmen - leave me out of it!

 

I am  glad to read that!! 

I apologize for misinterpreting your remarks. 

May I accurately conclude you believe the NYT is a centrist news source whose editors make an honest effort to report without deliberately favoring left or right?? 

Note: I had  always felt the NYT was just a bit right of center but recently I think it is just a tad left 

( scale? If 0 is left and 100 is right. They used to be a 55 to 60 and today are a 47 to 49) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

I am  glad to read that!! 

I apologize for misinterpreting your remarks. 

May I accurately conclude you believe the NYT is a centrist news source whose editors make an honest effort to report without deliberately favoring left or right?? 

Note: I had  always felt the NYT was just a bit right of center but recently I think it is just a tad left 

( scale? If 0 is left and 100 is right. They used to be a 55 to 60 and today are a 47 to 49) 

I think it's a tad further left than that - probably 45 - but I'm not going to quibble.  I honestly don't read it that much.  I believe it's very hard for a publication to exist in a city without generally absorbing and reflecting it's biases and NYC is one of the more liberal cities in the US. As a major paper, I do think they try and vet their sources and I mostly trust what they report.

My problem with the news in general is that in order to survive, they've all had to follow the 'Murdoch Model' and blend opinion with fact, which is regrettable.  I'd have preferred the Mexican model and just throw some porn in instead to pay the bills but our puritan roots prevent that so we get gossip porn instead of visual porn running through our news.

The Times is as subject to group think as any place. In my opinion, the daily papers, with their page limits, short print cycle, and pay model, are forced to be more superficial and sensationalist in general to compete.  I think the Times is no different in that regard although they're trying to limit the impact.

In your VEN diagram up there, I tend to trust sources like the Wall Street Journal, NPR, or the The Atlantic over someone like the Times.  They're not as space limited and include more details IMHO.  I'm a big fan of Hegel and his dialectic as a means to truth.  To that regard, I will drop down to the bottom left and right.  Broken watch and all that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark K said:

We haven't been hearing much from Glenn of late, and I suspect it's because he's smart enough to grasp just how easily he was played by "wikileaks", which is now known to all but surely have been a rather cleaver Russian operation. A classic Soviet-style trolling expedition for "useful idiots". Glenn is probably smart enough to see, now, that he played a key role in the handing over of Snowden to the Russians. 

  He would thereby aware of how easily he was used by true pros, and they were able to do it without breaking a sweat. Snowden was a naive kid, Glenn was supposed to be worldly-wise and imagined himself all that and a bag of chips. 

Snowden must live the rest of his life in Russia, highly likely.  That wouldn't have happened if Snowden had gone to a Sy Hersh or someone of like experience and intelligence. 

 A "Welcome to the majors, douchebag!" moment, huuuuugely.  

 Gonna take some time for him to put his rocked world back together again.   

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mid said:

bull shit , I'll tell anyone including myself what their faults are .

Yeah, but you don't listen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, badlatitude said:

I use John Brennan, not for a moment of his professional life, but for the sum of his life. Like all beings we have faults and we can forgive. I prefer to choose the best of us with faults included, trying to find perfection has always been a disappointment to me.

you certainly displayed this type of forgiveness toward one of his old employees, now replacement.

way to be consistent.  bravo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mark K said:

Snowden must live the rest of his life in Russia, highly likely.  That wouldn't have happened if Snowden had gone to a Sy Hersh or someone of like experience and intelligence. 

Ever been to Russia? No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

you certainly displayed this type of forgiveness toward one of his old employees, now replacement.

way to be consistent.  bravo.

Gina Haspel never apologized for her use of torture. She never would publicly say that torture is immoral. When Kamala Harris asked her if torture was immoral, she refused to answer. She withheld agency classified material from the Senate and made it difficult to impossible to assess her work in the agency. Is that enough? If Gina Haspel had simply said that she was sorry for her part in the use of torture, I might have found common ground with her. She didn't, and I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

Gina Haspel never apologized for her use of torture. She never would publicly say that torture is immoral. When Kamala Harris asked her if torture was immoral, she refused to answer. She withheld agency classified material from the Senate and made it difficult to impossible to assess her work in the agency. Is that enough? If Gina Haspel had simply said that she was sorry for her part in the use of torture, I might have found common ground with her. She didn't, and I won't.

 

17 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Like all beings we have faults and we can forgive. I prefer to choose the best of us with faults included, trying to find perfection has always been a disappointment to me.

Yeah... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

Yeah... 

Yeah, you evaluate and decide. Even you can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

you certainly displayed this type of forgiveness toward one of his old employees, now replacement.

way to be consistent.  bravo.

Gina Haspel never apologized for her use of torture. She never would publicly say that torture is immoral. When Kamala Harris asked her if torture was immoral, she refused to answer. She withheld agency classified material from the Senate and made it difficult to impossible to assess her work in the agency. Is that enough? If Gina Haspel had simply said that she was sorry for her part in the use of torture, I might have found common ground with her. She didn't, and I won't.

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Yeah, but you don't listen.

 

He he he!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

Not quite true. John Brennan said he would not perform torture if asked by Donald Trump., and since Donald Trump has said he would use torture and worse methods the answer becomes important. Gina Haspel never made that commitment to avoid torture and was the principal reason I rejected her.

I never painted Brennan as anything, they all lie, keeping them close to the truth....and justice is what's important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

Not quite true. John Brennan said he would not perform torture if asked by Donald Trump., and since Donald Trump has said he would use torture and worse methods the answer becomes important. Gina Haspel never made that commitment to avoid torture and was the principal reason I rejected her.

I never painted Brennan as anything, they all lie, keeping them close to the truth....and justice is what's important.

nope.

haspel said she wouldn't allow the cia to torture.  brennan said he wouldn't allow the cia to torture

haspel works for trump, brennan hates trump

no one is surprised which one you forgive, so just admit the inconsistency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, badlatitude said:

IMG_0628.jpg

Brennan was a stupid piece of shit for disbanding the Bath party and probably a war criminal. 

But even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

???

Might want to rethink this.

You can criticize him for flip-flopping but you can't in honesty say he "was and remains a full throated (whatever that means)" enthusiast for "enhanced interrogation" ie torture. He did say back in 2005 or so that waterboarding had produced good intel but he backtracked on that almost immediately

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

I itemized my objections, what more do you want? Brennan is still a Republican, did you think I gave him a pass because of Obama? Silly. The most passionate things I have written here were about torture, I don’t take the issue lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
4 hours ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

???

Might want to rethink this.

You can criticize him for flip-flopping but you can't in honesty say he "was and remains a full throated (whatever that means)" enthusiast for "enhanced interrogation" ie torture. He did say back in 2005 or so that waterboarding had produced good intel but he backtracked on that almost immediately

right. 

in 2014 he defended it, said it worked, and praised the personnel who performed it

2 years later (2016) he says on television he wouldn't allow cia personnel to torture.

he could always hire subcontractors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I itemized my objections, what more do you want? Brennan is still a Republican, did you think I gave him a pass because of Obama? Silly. The most passionate things I have written here were about torture, I don’t take the issue lightly.

then why do you forgive brennan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
5 hours ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

???

Might want to rethink this.

You can criticize him for flip-flopping but you can't in honesty say he "was and remains a full throated (whatever that means)" enthusiast for "enhanced interrogation" ie torture. He did say back in 2005 or so that waterboarding had produced good intel but he backtracked on that almost immediately

right. 

in 2014 he defended it, said it worked, and praised the personnel who performed it

2 years later (2016) he says on television he wouldn't allow cia personnel to torture.

he could always hire subcontractors 

Wrong on your time line there, might want to check the date he said something vs the date of the article you saw it in (or the date it was put on the interwebs)

In 2013 he was up for nomination by Obama and said "I had expressed my personal objections and views to some agency colleagues about certain of those EIT's, such as waterboarding, nudity and others where I professed my personal objections to it. But I did not try to stop it because it was something that was being done in a different part of the agency."

Brennan defended an interview with CBS in 2007 in which he said that IETs "saved lives" by gathering valuable intelligence. But he has since retreated from that view and told his confirmation hearing that the Senate's report on the CIA's detention and interrogation programme had disturbed him.

"There clearly were a number of things, many things, that I read in that report that were very concerning and disturbing to me. Ones that I would want to look into immediately if I were to be confirmed as CIA director. It talked about mismanagement of the programme, misrepresentation of information, providing inaccurate information, and it was rather damning in a lot of its language as far as the nature of these activities carried out," he said.

Although Brennan declined to call waterboarding torture, he pledged that under his direction the CIA will not again use such techniques.

I seem to recall even before then (during the GWB years) that he had made remarks to the effect that the US needed to be the good guys, and good guys don't torture prisoners, but I'm not interested in spending hours digging up more quotes.

So.... you're not just getting into the weeds here, you're pretty much becoming a reich-wing parrot: Brennan is good, except when he lies about torture being bad, and Brennan is bad when he says things that libby-rulls like to hear about how awful Trump is.

The worst thing you could accuse him of, in any honesty, is flip-flopping; or perhaps making comment about things that weren't his department and he he did not have good info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Ever been to Russia? No. 

 Haven't had to live in the Embassy Ecuador, London either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:
15 hours ago, Mickey Rat said:

Ever been to Russia? No. 

 Haven't had to live in the Embassy Ecuador, London either. 

Ever been in a Turkish prison?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Ever been in a Turkish prison?

1kulnt.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Ever been in a Turkish prison?

“I want to see my Ambassador!”.......

“Easily done... he’s in the next cell”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
16 hours ago, hermetic said:
17 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
21 hours ago, hermetic said:

brennan was, and remains, a full throated defender of the program - says it was effective.

however, he shares your hatred of the donald - so you forgive him.

that's all fine, just don't try and paint him as some type of reformer.  he lies through his teeth when it serves him

???

Might want to rethink this.

You can criticize him for flip-flopping but you can't in honesty say he "was and remains a full throated (whatever that means)" enthusiast for "enhanced interrogation" ie torture. He did say back in 2005 or so that waterboarding had produced good intel but he backtracked on that almost immediately

right. 

in 2014 he defended it, said it worked, and praised the personnel who performed it

2 years later (2016) he says on television he wouldn't allow cia personnel to torture.

he could always hire subcontractors 

Wrong on your time line there, might want to check the date he said something vs the date of the article you saw it in (or the date it was put on the interwebs)

In 2013 he was up for nomination by Obama and said "I had expressed my personal objections and views to some agency colleagues about certain of those EIT's, such as waterboarding, nudity and others where I professed my personal objections to it. But I did not try to stop it because it was something that was being done in a different part of the agency."

Brennan defended an interview with CBS in 2007 in which he said that IETs "saved lives" by gathering valuable intelligence. But he has since retreated from that view and told his confirmation hearing that the Senate's report on the CIA's detention and interrogation programme had disturbed him.

"There clearly were a number of things, many things, that I read in that report that were very concerning and disturbing to me. Ones that I would want to look into immediately if I were to be confirmed as CIA director. It talked about mismanagement of the programme, misrepresentation of information, providing inaccurate information, and it was rather damning in a lot of its language as far as the nature of these activities carried out," he said.

Although Brennan declined to call waterboarding torture, he pledged that under his direction the CIA will not again use such techniques.

I seem to recall even before then (during the GWB years) that he had made remarks to the effect that the US needed to be the good guys, and good guys don't torture prisoners, but I'm not interested in spending hours digging up more quotes.

So.... you're not just getting into the weeds here, you're pretty much becoming a reich-wing parrot: Brennan is good, except when he lies about torture being bad, and Brennan is bad when he says things that libby-rulls like to hear about how awful Trump is.

The worst thing you could accuse him of, in any honesty, is flip-flopping; or perhaps making comment about things that weren't his department and he he did not have good info.

in december 2014. after the senate intel committee came out with their report.  brennan, then head of the cia gave a presser:

"John O. Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday strongly defended C.I.A. officers who carried out brutal interrogation tactics against Qaeda suspects, describing agency interrogators as “patriots” and admonishing only those who went “outside the bounds” of Justice Department rules."

the guy is a liar.  and like haspel, is a torturer.  fuck both of them

but if you, like badlat, want to forgive him because he hates trump - then go right ahead.  just don't deny the hypocracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hermetic said:

in december 2014. after the senate intel committee came out with their report.  brennan, then head of the cia gave a presser:

"John O. Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday strongly defended C.I.A. officers who carried out brutal interrogation tactics against Qaeda suspects, describing agency interrogators as “patriots” and admonishing only those who went “outside the bounds” of Justice Department rules."

the guy is a liar.  and like haspel, is a torturer.  fuck both of them

but if you, like badlat, want to forgive him because he hates trump - then go right ahead.  just don't deny the hypocracy

Looks like you're really immersed in the hate-spew. I'm sorry to see that

Brennan is no way "a torturer" he only said good things about torture, then later said he was wrong and that torture is bad. I'm glad to see you pull up what appears to be a good quote/attribution. It fits with what else has been published.

But he's against Trump so he must be demonized! He is an evil liar, very bad person!! Anybody who says good things about Brennan is a horrible very bad libby-rull, think up a good insult name to call them!

Are we having fun yet?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
51 minutes ago, hermetic said:

in december 2014. after the senate intel committee came out with their report.  brennan, then head of the cia gave a presser:

"John O. Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday strongly defended C.I.A. officers who carried out brutal interrogation tactics against Qaeda suspects, describing agency interrogators as “patriots” and admonishing only those who went “outside the bounds” of Justice Department rules."

the guy is a liar.  and like haspel, is a torturer.  fuck both of them

but if you, like badlat, want to forgive him because he hates trump - then go right ahead.  just don't deny the hypocracy

Looks like you're really immersed in the hate-spew. I'm sorry to see that

Brennan is no way "a torturer" he only said good things about torture, then later said he was wrong and that torture is bad. I'm glad to see you pull up what appears to be a good quote/attribution. It fits with what else has been published.

But he's against Trump so he must be demonized! He is an evil liar, very bad person!! Anybody who says good things about Brennan is a horrible very bad libby-rull, think up a good insult name to call them!

Are we having fun yet?

you said I was wrong on the dates and time line that brennan made his statements.  I wasn't - you were

I replied to badlat's hypocrisy of forgiving brennan but railing against haspel on their roles in torturing and defending it's use 

neither deserve to be forgiven, but badlat's giving brennan a pass because their politics align.  if you can't see and understand that as hypocritical, I can't help that.  and I don't really care

just don't jump on me with obviously wrong information

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hermetic said:

but if you, like badlat, want to forgive him because he hates trump - then go right ahead.

O/K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

you said I was wrong on the dates and time line that brennan made his statements.  I wasn't - you were

How are my posts "wrong" when the dates of his statements are given as documented, and his quotes are 100% verbatim?

I replied to badlat's hypocrisy of forgiving brennan but railing against haspel on their roles in torturing and defending it's use 

neither deserve to be forgiven, but badlat's giving brennan a pass because their politics align.  if you can't see and understand that as hypocritical, I can't help that.  and I don't really care

just don't jump on me with obviously wrong information

 

OK, so now you don't have to be mad. I didn't.

However you are not looking at what you're quoting yourself. Where is Brennan's "full-throated endorsement" of torture? He basically said that guys who obeyed what were legal orders at the time are good with him. He did not torture anybody, he did not order any torture, he said that he once thought torture could be useful based on a report he was given (before 2007) but later discredited. Saying this in 2014 is fully consistent with his saying in 2013 that he did not and would not approve of torture.

Brennan may be a flip-flopper but he's not a LIAR!! and he never claimed that we should torture more prisoners, or anything of the sort. You're basically dancing around trying to justify going along with the RWNJ media attacks against Brennan because he says bad things about Trump. And you've said you're not really Trump fan anyway.............

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

OK, so now you don't have to be mad. I didn't.

However you are not looking at what you're quoting yourself. Where is Brennan's "full-throated endorsement" of torture? He basically said that guys who obeyed what were legal orders at the time are good with him. He did not torture anybody, he did not order any torture, he said that he once thought torture could be useful based on a report he was given (before 2007) but later discredited. Saying this in 2014 is fully consistent with his saying in 2013 that he did not and would not approve of torture.

Brennan may be a flip-flopper but he's not a LIAR!! and he never claimed that we should torture more prisoners, or anything of the sort. You're basically dancing around trying to justify going along with the RWNJ media attacks against Brennan because he says bad things about Trump. And you've said you're not really Trump fan anyway.............

-DSK

come on sport, do a little research before you type.  brennan was in tenet's cia during the whole program, and fully supported it.  here's a little interview from 2007:

In November, 2007, Brennan -- in an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith -- issued a ringing endorsement for so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" short of waterboarding:

SMITH: You know, this all becomes such a giant issue because the president has gone on record so many times saying the United States does not torture. If we acknowledge that this kind of activity goes on, you know, what does that mean, exactly, I guess?
Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.
SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.
Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.

and yes, brennan deserves to be attacked because, like haspel, he was a fan of rendition / torture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, hermetic said:

come on sport, do a little research before you type.  brennan was in tenet's cia during the whole program, and fully supported it.  here's a little interview from 2007:

In November, 2007, Brennan -- in an interview with CBS News' Harry Smith -- issued a ringing endorsement for so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" short of waterboarding:

SMITH: You know, this all becomes such a giant issue because the president has gone on record so many times saying the United States does not torture. If we acknowledge that this kind of activity goes on, you know, what does that mean, exactly, I guess?
Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.
SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.
Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.

and yes, brennan deserves to be attacked because, like haspel, he was a fan of rendition / torture

operative word....... WAS

And this is from 2007, not 2014 like you were saying several posts above. What did -I- say about Brennan's position on torture?

You're looking further, which is good, but apparently you've forgotten what you started out saying. Moving the goalposts, eh?

I think we're in violent agreement at this point, except that you are looking for a way to tar Brennan and I have been saying that your justification is bullshit. The worst thing you can accuse him of is flip-flopping, which you just demonstrated is what he's done. Actually, no.... the worst thing you can accuse him of is being against Trump, but that's not evil enough to scream about on RWNJ media nor is it a crime at this point.

Nowhere does he say that HE HIMSELF tortured prisoners. Nowhere does it say that HE HIMSELF ordered action taken on intel gained from torture and that it saved lives. He's quoting a report given him by another branch of the agency. I'd be interested in seeing what he justified that report by, or why he later decided that it was unfounded.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

holy shit.  forest and trees

I give up - brennan's an outstanding individual and I won't besmirch your and badlats love for him again.  promise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hermetic said:

holy shit.  forest and trees

I give up - brennan's an outstanding individual and I won't besmirch your and badlats love for him again.  promise

Now you've gone past the weeds and dove head-first into the swamp

No idea what BadLat has said to make you run away so fast, but I have not expressed any "love" for Brennan, only pointed out that your attacks against him are irrational and dishonest..... same source, same motivation, as the claims that Comey is a liar, that Mueller is a rabid partisan Democrat, etc etc etc.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this