That tweet (from some 4,000 follower verified nobody, but nonetheless) nails it. 90% of MSNBC's audience will continue to be outraged over something that didn't happen. Incredible.

Quote:Correction: Trump’s Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah

On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002.

The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.

https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-c...in-torture

They do not care if something isn't true. If they did, it wouldn't keep happening.

Apparently neither does McCain. Didn't he echo that?

Sad.

Whats even sadder is that the book they got this info from said the person in charge at the time was a "HE". And a small amount of additional investigating would have easily turned up that she wasnt in charge of that place at the time.

Wait, so she did oversee torture, but just not of the particular detainee in question.

Is that y'all's argument? Okay.

(03-16-2018 01:06 PM)Kronke Wrote:  That tweet (from some 4,000 follower verified nobody, but nonetheless) nails it. 90% of MSNBC's audience will continue to be outraged over something that didn't happen. Incredible.

Quote:Correction: Trump’s Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah

On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002.

The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.

https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-c...in-torture

Wow, laughable.

(03-16-2018 02:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Wait, so she did oversee torture, but just not of the particular detainee in question.

Is that y'all's argument? Okay.

We didn't even define the worse one as torture.
Not that we are still doing things at that level.

Seriously, the story isn't that the press got the name of the person tortured wrong, but that the CIA pick oversaw torture.

Nah, nothing to see here.

I don't feel like digging, can anyone confirm that tom spread ProPublica's original story?

That would be two fake news stories that he has been duped into spreading in two days, neither of which he has disavowed.

(03-16-2018 03:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I don't feel like digging, can anyone confirm that tom spread ProPublica's original story?

That would be two fake news stories that he has been duped into spreading in two days, neither of which he has disavowed.

LOL. Good luck looking for that. I'll let you get back to posting garbage from Gateway Pundit and Infowars.

Please, send me how I posted Propublica's anything here. Direct and personal accusation you made there. Find where I posted the propublica stuff or retract.

And BTW, the threads here that YOU guys put up said that she did oversee torture, just not of the particular person that I never mentioned.

Again, source for your personal attack?

(03-16-2018 03:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-16-2018 03:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I don't feel like digging, can anyone confirm that tom spread ProPublica's original story?

That would be two fake news stories that he has been duped into spreading in two days, neither of which he has disavowed.

LOL. Good luck looking for that. I'll let you get back to posting garbage from Gateway Pundit and Infowars.

Please, send me how I posted Propublica's anything here.

I didn't say you did, I asked if you did. Notice the question mark at the end of the question, and the phrasing that it "would be", not that "it is".

Personal attack? Give me a break.

(03-16-2018 03:02 PM)Kronke Wrote:  I don't feel like digging, can anyone confirm that tom spread ProPublica's original story?

That would be two fake news stories that he has been duped into spreading in two days, neither of which he has disavowed.

SOURCES for your accusation. Direct personal attack you made on a poster. Back it up.

---

And the other case wasn't fake news either. You just don't think that impropriety means the same that I do.

---

Either way, the reporting that the pro Trumpers have put up in here report that while the CIA nominee wasn't present for the torture of one person, that she was present for another.

(03-16-2018 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And the other case wasn't fake news either.

You doubled down that gambling is (as originally reported) a "serious financial crime".

Even Yashir Ali (a liberal who I disagree with, but respect as a reporter) agrees that the original story was unfair to McEntee, and needed to be retracted.

(03-16-2018 03:15 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-16-2018 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And the other case wasn't fake news either.

You doubled down that gambling is (as originally reported) a "serious financial crime".

Even Yashir Ali (a liberal who I disagree with, but respect as a reporter) agrees that the original story was unfair to McEntee, and needed to be retracted.

I don't have to agree with Ali. If you're gambling thousands of dollars, its improper for a person with access to sensitive information.

Why not just say "Trump hires staff based upon their ability to throw a football at a far away target outside of a football game, and who spends thousands of dollars gambling". And he was thrown out without so much as time to grab his coat. Sure, go with that.

Just because one part of a story might be open for interpretation, doesn't mean that the story is 'fake news'.

Again, SOURCE for your assertion that my characterization of the CIA pick is 'fake news'.

(03-16-2018 03:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-16-2018 03:15 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(03-16-2018 03:10 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And the other case wasn't fake news either.

You doubled down that gambling is (as originally reported) a "serious financial crime".

Even Yashir Ali (a liberal who I disagree with, but respect as a reporter) agrees that the original story was unfair to McEntee, and needed to be retracted.

I don't have to agree with Ali. If you're gambling thousands of dollars, its improper for a person with access to sensitive information.

Why not just say "Trump hires staff based upon their ability to throw a football at a far away target outside of a football game, and who spend thousands of dollars gambling". And he was thrown out without so much as time to grab his coat. Sure, go with that.

Just because one part of a story might be open for interpretation, doesn't mean that the story is 'fake news'.

The story was that he was being investigated for "serious financial crimes". That was fake news. Notice that you keep leaving that part out, and continue trying to re-frame it as something else.

Now, what he is being investigated for is (in your own words) merely improper. If they were "serious financial crimes", that would go without saying. You're debunking the story yourself without admitting (or realizing) it, while simultaneously standing by it because the advancement of muh team's narrative is more important to you than the truth.

thats disappointing

(03-16-2018 01:06 PM)Kronke Wrote:  That tweet (from some 4,000 follower verified nobody, but nonetheless) nails it. 90% of MSNBC's audience will continue to be outraged over something that didn't happen. Incredible.

Quote:Correction: Trump’s Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah

On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002.

The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.

https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-c...in-torture

Too bad, I'm in favor of torture for terrorists in order to protect innocent American citizens.

(03-16-2018 02:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Seriously, the story isn't that the press got the name of the person tortured wrong, but that the CIA pick oversaw torture.

Nah, nothing to see here.

Sums up all your posts.

(03-16-2018 02:58 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Seriously, the story isn't that the press got the name of the person tortured wrong, but that the CIA pick oversaw torture.

Nah, nothing to see here.

It's like the Obama Administration never even happened.

Quote:Before Obama even took office, he announced his belief that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards” on torture. That set the standard for Obama’s tenure, as all avenues of accountability for Bush-era torture were curtailed. A Justice Department inquiry into interrogators who broke even the “acceptable torture” guidelines ended with no charges. Civil lawsuits from former detainees were blocked when the Obama-era Justice Department invoked the state secrets doctrine. An internal Justice Department review of the torture memo’s authors concluded they had not committed professional misconduct when they worked backwards to justify the Bush administration’s use of torture in defiance of laws against it. Even a proposal for a South African-style “truth and reconciliation” commission was rejected. All avenues for any form of accountability for torture—criminal, civil, even professional—were blocked by Obama-era officials. Even an episode in which the CIA spied on Senate staff in an effort to stonewall an inquiry that ultimately found CIA torture ineffective, and then lied about having done so, ended with little more than an apology.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...re/555578/

Quote:Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, in his new book, describes being summoned to a White House meeting and cussed out by President Obama’s chief of staff after he agreed to give the Senate intelligence committee access to documents chronicling the agency’s use of torture during the Bush administration.

“The president wants to know who the **** authorized this release to the committees,” Rahm Emanuel, who served as Obama’s chief of staff and enforcer in 2009 and 2010, is quoted as saying while slamming the table for emphasis.

Panetta’s book, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace, is a blunt account of his time as Obama’s CIA director and, later, Secretary of Defense.

He describes being micromanaged and second-guessed by White House aides who seemed focused on political appearance over substance. White House pushback on the Senate torture inquiry, which came despite Obama’s pledge to run the most transparent administration ever, is in that way typical – as is Emanuel’s profane tirade.

https://theintercept.com/2014/10/07/pane...e-inquiry/

So she didn't oversee the torture of terrorists?

Darn it.

BTW, after all the water boarding stuff came out my father did something he rarely ever did: talk about his Vietnam days in the Air Force.

One thing he mentioned was that he went through water boarding. It was part of their training.

If we do it to our own guys, what's all the fuss?