Reply With Quote
They used the CIA's own records.
Your unwavering reliance on the U.S. Senate report, a clearly partisan hack job in which they interviewed no one at the agency they were investigating, and Rolling Stone Magazine is unpersuasive.
They used the CIA's own records.
There, fixed.
Nope. Actual records.
And no reason to interview the CIA. All they did was lie outside their own records.
You're welcome.
You're disputing that the Senate report wasn't based on CIA records/cables?
I believe the Senate Committee has a conclusion in mind and only published CIA records/cables that supported that conclusion. I believe the Senate Committee took things out of context, manipulated records, and generally performed a hit job on the agency for partisan political reasons.
For instance, the conclusion in the report that the CIA performed a single rectal rehydration for non-medical reasons was based on a single e-mail. There's no record of whether or not the CIA agreed with that e-mail or whether or not other records may have existed that countered that e-mail.
That's why you talk to the agency.
No, I have zero confidence the Senate Report is even close to accurate.
Has the CIA ever lied, yoni?
Have politicians ever lied to you Chump?
Sure.
Has the CIA ever lied, yoni?
Can't say they've ever spoken to me. They're rather a private group.
Not the question.
Has the CIA ever lied in the history of the organization?
You tell me.
In the context of the current argument, I'm more inclined to believe the CIA than the Senate.
Not the question.
Has the CIA ever lied, yoni?
Well, that's my answer, you'll just have to deal with it. But, if you're keeping score, I trust the Central Intelligence Agency over Senate Democrats, every day of the week.
That's because you're a partisan hack who is afraid to answer a simple question.
TBH both sides of this issue are ridiculously Partisan.
I find the current outrage over something everyone has known for years was going on to be pathetically humorous.
It's an irrelevant question to the current conversation. The CIA has existed through both Democrat and Republican administrations; whether or not the CIA (an organization that only speaks publicly when forced) has ever forwarded a lie would require someone to know on what (usually highly classified) information the lie was based. Since we can't know everything, we can't make a judgment. You can argue no agency should enjoy that amount of secrecy but, that's a different argument.
I do think that sometimes works to their disadvantage because, well, Senate Democrats can pretty much say whatever they want and know the CIA will be reluctant to speak out against them because -- ing secrets.
In the context of the current argument, I believe the CIA is more credible than the Senate Intelligence Committee. That career CIA officials are exposing themselves to personal, public persecution to set the records straight only bolsters my confidence.
I'm with for Clandestine Services Chief Jose Rodriguez and psychologist James Mitc -- don't take their word for it, look at contemporaneous internal memos (which they claim were never intended to see the light of day) for proof of what Democrat members of Congress knew about their interrogation techniques.
Like I said, I'd trust the CIA over Democrats in the Senate all day long.
Because you are a partisan hack that can't answer a simple question.
lol persecution
They shouldn't have been so eager to torture. If it's so harmless and effective they wouldn't have destroyed evidence of it and lied about it every chance they got.
Simple, nonpartisan answer: the CIA lies.
In this case, I believe it's the politicians lying.
The CIA did not allow its agents to be interviewed for the report. Attributing the CIA's non-cooperation to the investigators is dishonest.That's why you talk to the agency.
Yoni also lies.
Not true. The CIA says the Senate committee told them they did not interview anyone from the agency because of some DOJ investigation that ended two years prior to the release of the report. Brennan, Hayden, and Rodriguez all claim there were no barriers to the CIA being available for the Senate Investigation.
And, Winehole is mistaken.
That's not even Feinstein's excuse for not interviewing employees of the CIA.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions