Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS
"I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans."
By Matthew Alexander
Matthew Alexander has spent eighteen years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. An “investigator turned interrogator,” he deployed to Iraq in 2006, where he led the interrogations team that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq, who was killed by Coalition Forces. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star for his achievements.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
And his administration claimed that they did not even know who the rebels were. You know, those people trying to overthrow the democratically elected government in Libya.
Then later we find out they were Al Qaeda. Just as Qadafi said.
That's some pretty fucked up shit!
Last edited by hairballxavier; 12-22-2011 at 01:00 PM.
There's two things going on here. Republicans don't want to praise Obama even though he's doing what they want. And liberals, who ran around with their hair on fire talking about the end of the republic when Bush did these things, now express their firm disapproval. And they'll still vote for the President's reelection.
Strawman, for the most part hes not doing what they want.
that may be, matey. we can talk 'bout it in a half century or so, and see how history treats President Obama.
democrats and really, the entire nation, knew that candidate Obama would prosecute the war in Aghanistan, so thar really be no surprise thar, nor be thar any hypocrisy.
in terms 'o Mr. Obama's aggressive pursuit 'o AQ, well, anyone who wasn't asleep durin' the 2008 elections knew the senator's view on this;
- candidate Obama, Oct. 7 2008We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.
no surprises thar, nor be thar any hypocrisy.
to return to the OP, the only hypocrisy here be chest thumpin' conservatives that have suddenly gone dovish....either that, or they just can't bring themselves to laud the President's fearsome use 'o our military to keep america safe.
Last edited by MeadHallPirate; 12-23-2011 at 11:33 AM.
Obama is no more a liberal than any Republican candidate is. But he is less conservative and far less authoritarian than all but Ron Paul.
The real question is why anybody who actually believes in the tenets which this country was founded would ever vote for someone who only shows so much contempt for those principles. Someone who is actually violating their oath of office from the moment they put their hand on the Bible. Someone like GWB who actually belongs in prison for torturing and murdering innocent civilians yet got reelected anyway.
Last edited by Formaldehyde; 12-23-2011 at 11:34 AM.