Kossacks Can’t Read!
- Posted by Beth on April 10th, 2008 filed in Afghanistan, Blogtards, General, Iraq, Moonbats, Politics, Stupid, Terrorism, The War, WTF, Why is this guy still alive?
ZOMG, BUSH AUTHORIZED TORTURE!!11!
FAIL.
What’s important now we have at least ONE signed memo which establishes George W. Bush as the executive authority making final decisions in the NSC process which established a United States run torture regime; the document shown at the bottom of this post.
Wow, the President is the authority who makes final decisions in the NSC? Stunning news!!! Not.
Here’s the shocking document (PDF) that has all the Kossacks in an uproar. Please take note of items 3 through 5, but read it all thoroughly and tell me–where does he “authorize torture?”
Click the thumbnails to see full-size.
Libs are absurd, hysterical, lying idiots. It must suck having your entire worldview based on lies and fallacy.
(Also not news: Diggtards can’t read, either.)
Lord Bitememan says:
Meh, big waste of time trying to sniff out documents and link Bush with torture if you ask me. Suppose they found some documents? Even if they started impeachment motions today, it’s unlikely that they could even wrap up a removal from office by the time the elections rolled around.
Here’s the more interesting question. Let’s strip aside the nicities of flowery international treaties for a second. I’ve got buddies in intelligence. Everyone tortures. They do it and so do we. Torture works. You wouldn’t need laws and treaties against it if it didn’t, military and intelligence wouldn’t waste their time, they’d use more productive techniques. So here’s the question, a hypothetical to be certain:
A truck transporting a nuclear warhead is being driven towards Chicago, we have someone in our custody who can help us intercept it before it reaches the city. The guy won’t talk. The intelligence official on a video conference with President Obama picks up a hammer and says “gimme a sec Mr. President.” Does President Obama authorize this torture, or does he let the people of his home city fry in a nuclear fireball?
Dirty war, dirty tactics, the dead don’t have the luxury of feeling guilty for surviving.
Beth says:
Exactly!
And look–Bush specifically said “treat prisoners humanely,” and STILL Abu Ghraib happened. There will *always* be torture in some form, whether we sanction it or not. It was not sanctioned in this case, and still it happens. But that doesn’t matter to stupid libs; they honestly won’t be happy until the human race, with all its human foibles, is eradicated. They’ll never have their perfect utopia, no matter how many fucking laws and resolutions they want to pass.
If I had to bet on it, I’d guess he’d try “negotiating” rather than ensuring that nuke doesn’t reach its destination. He clearly has absolutely no fucking grasp of reality in the world. It’s all theoretical to him. God forbid he’s ever in the position to make a life-or-death decision.
raz0r says:
You expect them to read and comprehend? If they could do that, they’d be conservatives. ;-)
And I really don’t care if we torture or not. Well, maybe a bit. But just a bit. The animals we are fighting do not operate under the same code of ethos that we do. What we may inflict on them pales in comparison to their barbarity.
The left can save the outrage for their intimate circle jerks.
Jason says:
Wow. That’s quite the smoking gun there. Let’s see: It basically says that members of al Queda and the Taliban are not subject to the provisions of the Geneva conventions (having not been signatories to it and all that), but we’re going to treat them in accordance with Geneva anyway.
Yeah, um, that’s quite damning.