Another leftist lie put to rest

First off, what makes this "leftist"? Where did the term "extraordinary rendition" come from? I don't think the lefties made it up.

Second, that report doesn't put anything to rest as the investigation is not complete yet. It sounds to me as if de Vries is mainly trying to cover his A - to make the EU not responsible for having allowed these secret CIA flights.

Is it possible for the CIA to have not used EU airports and fly space?

This report is more about whether the EU had any part in allowing torture than about the CIA.

Given the CIA's history, the Bush admin's special definitions of torture and that Cheney sought immunity for the CIA from the antitorture legislation, I'd have to say that it is still a distinct possibility that it happened and is continuing to happen.

Did you read about the Canadian guy who was kidnapped from an airplane at JFK, flown to Syria where he was held and interrogated for a year before he was returned to Canada with no charges against him? I'm not familiar with the German guy.

I'd like to say, "Of course, we don't do that sort of thing", but I think we do.

 

You're saying that the term 'extraordinary rendition' as well as its meaning came from the left? The term came from our own government. They've admitted to abducting foreign nationals for questioning.

Just so I understand this correctly, please spell out just what lie you think has been debunked.

Cheering for what?

Which story? That we had special, secret prisons, that we shipped adbuctees to foreign prisons for special interrogations that we couldn't perform ourselves or that none of this ever happenned?

Ok, I'd like to say that transparency in government is a leftie thing, but really anyone in favor of good government, accountable to its citizens, heralds it and that includes many thinking conservatives.

The article you linked to was from the Boston Globe. So you're saying that this "leftist paper if there ever was one" has put "another leftist lie" to rest - if they are as slanted and prejudiced as you seem to be saying, why would they do this?

Is there any newssource that does its own original reporting that you do consider reliable?

Why? Since the "fruit" of the investigation be that the CIA was involved in illegal, why would they sit on it? Aren't lefties supposed to glory in exposing government malfeasance?

I had to look her up - she won the 2006 prize for the reporting she did for the Washington Post. Could you please specify how your article on an interrum investigation debunks hers?

Anyway, what about the Canadian, Maher Arar, who was kidnapped, flown to Syria and "interrogated" for a year before being released without charges? Are you claiming that it never happened, that he was treated very nicely by our Syrian friends, that it was a one time only instance or what?

How about Khaled el-Masri? These are the guys your article mentions who were not allowed to testify at the hearing which you say proves -- what?

 

No, that's just an article written by Sid Pranke talking about her prize.

Here (linky) is a linky to linkies of the actual stories.

You cynic!
***sigh*** that just doesn't carry much zing.

Hmm, second thoughts about posting about something that seemingly contradicts your original point?

I think you deleted the link to this article (linky) about the CIA agent being fired for leaking to a reporter about the secret jails. So either the agent was leaking leftist lies or the jails are real.

 

Ok, just so happened (I know that coincidences are frequent).

I know that it takes a lot of time to crosscheck and read the various sources.

I'm not about to check your history against a calendar to determine your posting habits - I don't care - I'll gladly take your word for it.

Inquiring minds want to know!

 

Thanks, that's quite a compliment.

 

Oh, come on, Bro. Curtis!

This is a reiteration of Rush Limbaugh's nutcase conspiracy theory. He has been talking about this, and in typical fashion, he simply makes statements without anything to substantiate such a conspiracy theory. Of course, this all goes back to his insatiable fixation on the Clintons, as he has stated that this is all an effort to make former President Bill Clinton look good. That was the first thing he addressed on his show the other day (at 12:05 EDT).

[Remember: I willingly admit to listening to him..........as long as I can possibly stand.]

The DESPICABLE Mr. Novak outed a CIA operative, and then followed up by compromising the firm for which she worked, along with ANYONE associated with the front company. There is the REAL treason with respect to this whole ordeal. Remember: the DESPICABLE Mr. Novak compromised "the good guys" in the war on terror.

Bro. Curtis, I am quite fond of you and enjoy your posts, but come on. You are better than this.

God's Best to you and your wonderful family,
BiR

 

As I yours....

Brilliant?
Not even close. Rush Limbaugh is not original, nor is he brilliant or credible. Here's a fun game: whenever his show begins, point your web browser to the Drudge Report. More often than not, he takes his material directly from this page.

Another fun game to play when listening to Rush is to use a stopwatch to see how long it takes for him to make a reference to former President Bill Clinton - usually done within the first half-hour behind that golden microphone.

As I recall, the person who typed those memos said that those particular copies are fake. But I guess we will never know.....

I don't usually post to those discussions.

Thanks for rubbing that in my face!!!


God's Best to you,

BiR

 

What would be the point?

 

Ha! That sounds like a "prove to me you are worthy" thing. Who cares whether you believe I or anyone else is truly objective.

What's "objective" about debating someone impervious to facts and reason? Not that I don't take some of those on some of the time, but there's a limit. Besides, "objective" seems to be one of those loaded catch phrases; I get the feeling it has connotations far beyond its usual meaning to those in the know (which I'm not). Is it one of them Limbaugh words?

Bush did profit enormously from 9/11 and it's possible, although not necessarily probable, he might have been prevented the attack had he been a capable president, but you're talking about those who believe he was actively involved in downing the towers and blaming al Qaeda, right? The ones who've argued against that idea have done an admirable job in doing their homework and presenting the case - much better than I could have done - but to no effect.

So what would be the point? It's not even interesting.

 

Are you sure about that?
I cannot really get AirAmerica on my XMtogo at work, but it's not usually the same thing twice.

And when Al or Randi are on the air, what website catalogs all of their material PRIOR to the show going on the air? Some times it even works with Laura Ingraham.....

Read what I wrote again: I agreed with you that those particular copies were fakes.

I saw a weather report today, and thought about how much fun you must be having out there in Big Sky Country. I trust that all is well with you and yours.

Regards,
BiR