[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I'm just saying that it doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. It doesn't mean it was close to happening, and therefore any intelligence was actionable. It just means they thought about it.

Also, don't forget that we had intelligence about them planning to strike in the United States too, remember that? Just saying. Having intelligence doesn't mean we stop anything necessarily, it just means we know about some portion of the plan.

And regardless, I don't recall having ever been a really serious 'torture never works' type. Maybe I have and you'll find it for me, but I certainly don't remember ever holding a steadfast view on it. I'm obviously suspicious of it, which was the point of my post to Chuck...that I'm dubious of these claims given the source, especially if that source was busy trying to find a way to justify torturing people, you kinda get the feeling they'd have an incentive to say that it works...whether it does or not, right? That's not partisan stuff, that's simple common sense.

Nothing changes that torture is wrong in my eyes and that's the problem between me and you and Chuck and everyone, your future collection of Muslim dicks notwithstanding.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...nterrogations/

Will you believe that the "torture" was helpful to our country if the Obama national intelligence director says so??