"Three CIA Directors - George Tenet, Porter Goss and General Hayden - have all said that the take from those three people that were waterboarded constituted a major fraction of all our knowledge about al Qaeda," Rumsfeld told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "The fourth CIA Director, Leon Panetta, has said very recently on television that some of that information was part of a patchwork or mosaic that led to the attack on Osama bin Laden."
"Three CIA Directors - George Tenet, Porter Goss and General Hayden - have all said that the take from those three people that were waterboarded constituted a major fraction of all our knowledge about al Qaeda," Rumsfeld told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "The fourth CIA Director, Leon Panetta, has said very recently on television that some of that information was part of a patchwork or mosaic that led to the attack on Osama bin Laden."
rumsfeld, tenet, and goss all still maintain that iraq had wmds and was an imminent threat to the united states, and that saddam was involved in 9/11. all of them have zero credibility in the eyes of the world.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the Bush administration did their homework before initiating the policy.
“Well, I certainly would advocate it,” Cheney replied. “I’d be a strong supporter of it. We went to a lot of trouble to find out what we could do, how far we could go, what was legal and so forth. Out of that emerged what we called enhanced interrogation. It worked. It provided some absolutely vital pieces of intelligence. There is a study that was done by the CIA in the National Archives, some of it has been declassified now, that shows that enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided a vast treasure trove if you will of intelligence. It was a good program. It was a legal program. It was not torture. I would strongly recommend we continue it.”
thanks again GW for keeping us safe, you too Obama.
Vice President Dick Cheney said it “wouldn’t be surprising” if interrogation techniques authorized by President Bush provided critical intelligence that led to bin Laden’s death.
“It's an enhanced interrogation program that we put in place back in our first term,”
yeah dick cheney's word means anything....like he knows if torture worked or not.... :roll:
give me dick cheney, a board, a pitcher of water and five minutes and he will admit to kidnapping the lindbergh baby.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
An old joke: "Why do elephants paint their toenails red?" I don't know. "So they can hide in the tomato patch." There are no elephants in the tomato patch. "See? It works."
That's the sort of logic deployed by defenders of the Bush administration's torture program. After being waterboarded, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted knowing someone later found to be Osama bin Laden's courier. The CIA eventually located the man and followed him to the house where bin Laden was killed. Voila! The information from Mohammed vindicates these methods.
But it turns out that Mohammed also lied about the courier, saying he was a retired nobody. From this, CIA officials now claim, they knew the guy had to be a big deal. It was a crucial clue.
That's right: When tortured detainees provide truthful information, they prove torture works, and when they lie, they prove it works. If Mohammed had broken into a chorus of "Y.M.C.A.," that would have proved the same.
This bizarre reasoning is one of the many oddities about the defense of torture. Another is that the advocates never, ever refer to it as torture.
Mark Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, wrote a column for The Washington Post defending what he called "enhanced interrogation techniques." Former Justice Department official John Yoo referred to them as "tough interrogations."
Let's be more specific. Mohammed underwent simulated drowning 183 times. Methods used on him and others, reports The New York Times, include "slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in stress positions and keeping them awake as long as 180 hours." The CIA admitted making detainees stand for up to 40 hours and dousing naked captives with cold water in chilled cells.
If treatment like this were inflicted on captured American soldiers, no American would dispute that it was torture. But when we resort to it, the likes of Thiessen and Yoo can't bring themselves to use the honest term. Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is like calling the Alabama tornadoes "enhanced weather."
The evidence that vicious methods work is modest. Matthew Alexander, who wrote about his experience as a military interrogator in Iraq in his book "Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist," says that far from being helpful, brutality usually makes it harder to get information from a prisoner.
Alexander, an Air Force Reserve officer who conducted or supervised some 1,300 interrogations using traditional techniques, told me, "I was surprised that the people we thought would be the hardest were the easiest to interrogate."
He cites the case of a Muslim scholar, a high-level al-Qaida operative who was "as hard-core as you could find." Using a non-coercive approach, "in six hours I convinced him to cooperate."
How can it be that a violent, determined enemy of the United States could be persuaded to talk without extreme measures? "He's human, he's not a robot," says Alexander. By establishing a personal connection, interrogators can induce prisoners to open up. But if detainees are abused, he found, "they quit talking."
Sometimes, no doubt, torture can loosen a tongue. But once a high-value operative is brutalized, there is no way to know what he might have divulged under more patient, humane interrogation. If he spills a secret after being waterboarded, it "proves" that torture works. If he withholds information, it "proves" that nothing else would have sufficed.
But what if torture does sometimes work? Mere effectiveness is not enough to justify it. Yoo was once asked about the legality of "crushing the testicles of a person's child," and he did not rule it out.
Why should he? If torturing a terrorist failed, wouldn't we be justified in torturing his wife or his children to get the truth?
If waterboarding is OK, why not crushing testicles? Why not pulling out fingernails? Why not the most agonizing methods an evil mind could devise? The advocates of waterboarding are much more eager to declare what is allowed than what is forbidden — if anything.
In the end, they don't really care about imposing limits, and they don't really care if torture is effective or not. Torture, in the minds of its apologists, is not a means to a good result. It's a good result all by itself.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the Bush administration did their homework before initiating the policy.
“Well, I certainly would advocate it,” Cheney replied. “I’d be a strong supporter of it. We went to a lot of trouble to find out what we could do, how far we could go, what was legal and so forth. Out of that emerged what we called enhanced interrogation. It worked. It provided some absolutely vital pieces of intelligence. There is a study that was done by the CIA in the National Archives, some of it has been declassified now, that shows that enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided a vast treasure trove if you will of intelligence. It was a good program. It was a legal program. It was not torture. I would strongly recommend we continue it.”
thanks again GW for keeping us safe, you too Obama.
Dear me... the more you try to strengthen your case, the weaker it gets.
Cheney & Rumsfeld? That's the best you can do to support your position?! The men who had the most vested interest in trying to justify it? That makes about as much sense as saying, "Well, I know Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, because he said he didn't."
So, it was not torture because Dick Cheney said it wasn't? But those who actually experienced said it was. Hmmm... who's more qualified to say so, I wonder?
It was legal because Dick Cheney said so? Even though many experts far more legally qualified than Dick Cheney said, actually, yes it is illegal. Who's more reliable? Hmmm... let me see...
In fact, I've already pointed out (though you might have missed it, since you only read the things that don't disturb your fantasy) the US has repeatedly referred to waterboarding as torture when other people do it, and has even prosecuted people as war criminals for using it. So, not to put too fine a point on it, but Dick Cheney is lying.
And PS.... shouting your argument doesn't make it any more valid.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
'...critics of torture immediately rebutted the claims, arguing that the worst of the mistreatment in the CIA-run system of "black prisons" had been stopped by 2006 and that it took another five years to find Bin Laden. They said the key breakthroughs in the hunt were down to old-fashioned surveillance and intelligence techniques, cyber-snooping or via standard interrogations.
Deputy national security adviser John Brennan was directly asked in a TV interview if waterboarding had helped catch Bin Laden. "Not to my knowledge," he replied. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is head of the Senate intelligence committee, told Time that there was no such evidence. "I do not believe that there is any evidence that this came from waterboarding," she said. "We're still looking into it, but so far, no."
Some human rights experts agreed, saying that there seemed little concrete evidence of a direct link. "There clearly was no smoking gun of a direct correlation between waterboarding and finding this suspect," said Geneve Mantri, government relations director for terrorism and counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International USA, referring to the courier who eventually led investigators to Bin Laden's hiding place.
Mantri said the hunt for Bin Laden had been long and involved many steps and no definitive breakthroughs had occurred during the Bush years when torture techniques were used. "This operation was a slow and gradual process of piecing together fragments of information. If the previous administration had got that [definitive] information they clearly did not act on it," he said...'
'Deputy national security adviser John Brennan was directly asked in a TV interview if waterboarding had helped catch Bin Laden.
"Not to my knowledge," he replied.
"I do not believe that there is any evidence that this came from waterboarding." - Dianne Feinstein... head of the Senate intelligence committee
"There clearly was no smoking gun of a direct correlation between waterboarding and finding this suspect" - Geneve Mantri, government relations director for terrorism and counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International USA
Well, if you ask me, that pretty much wraps up this thread.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
the Bush administration did their homework before initiating the policy.
“Well, I certainly would advocate it,” Cheney replied. “I’d be a strong supporter of it. We went to a lot of trouble to find out what we could do, how far we could go, what was legal and so forth. Out of that emerged what we called enhanced interrogation. It worked. It provided some absolutely vital pieces of intelligence. There is a study that was done by the CIA in the National Archives, some of it has been declassified now, that shows that enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided a vast treasure trove if you will of intelligence. It was a good program. It was a legal program. It was not torture. I would strongly recommend we continue it.”
thanks again GW for keeping us safe, you too Obama.
Dear me... the more you try to strengthen your case, the weaker it gets.
Cheney & Rumsfeld? That's the best you can do to support your position?! The men who had the most vested interest in trying to justify it? That makes about as much sense as saying, "Well, I know Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, because he said he didn't."
So, it was not torture because Dick Cheney said it wasn't? But those who actually experienced said it was. Hmmm... who's more qualified to say so, I wonder?
It was legal because Dick Cheney said so? Even though many experts far more legally qualified than Dick Cheney said, actually, yes it is illegal. Who's more reliable? Hmmm... let me see...
In fact, I've already pointed out (though you might have missed it, since you only read the things that don't disturb your fantasy) the US has repeatedly referred to waterboarding as torture when other people do it, and has even prosecuted people as war criminals for using it. So, not to put too fine a point on it, but Dick Cheney is lying.
And PS.... shouting your argument doesn't make it any more valid.
do not forget that in world war II the americans EXECUTED the japanese soldiers for waterboarding american pows....my my my how times have changed and how opinions changed depending on who is on the receiving end of that pitcher of water....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
rumsfeld, tenet, and goss all still maintain that iraq had wmds and was an imminent threat to the united states, and that saddam was involved in 9/11. all of them have zero credibility in the eyes of the world.
Yea, I'll take your word for that. You are probably well traveled/schooled. :?
rumsfeld, tenet, and goss all still maintain that iraq had wmds and was an imminent threat to the united states, and that saddam was involved in 9/11. all of them have zero credibility in the eyes of the world.
Yea, I'll take your word for that. You are probably well traveled/schooled. :?
relax IBA. i am just stating what is common knowledge that would be backed up by a cursury google search...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Anyone who suggests that starting a war in Iraq made us safer or is justified now loses all credibility with me. How can anyone justify the war that, at a very minimum, has caused 100,000 civilian deaths(Iraq body count) and upwards of 1.4 millions total deaths (Opinion research business)? Seriously. How?
Documents recently released by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) demonstrate the valuable information gained by so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” that ultimately led to the recent killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A non-partisan watchdog group obtained the documents as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
These documents show that without ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ Osama bin Laden might still be hiding in his compound plotting to kill more innocents. The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden will prompt President Obama to rethink his ideological and political positions on enhanced interrogation techniques. President Obama can no longer attack the very intelligence techniques that led to his brightest day thus far as president,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
That's strange, because according to all of the worlds top foreign affairs analysts, including the U.S's own governmental advisory committee, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put the lives of Americans at greater risk.
But then, what do they know?
start your own thread about those wars. this one is about how we are safer from enhanced interrogation techniques and not being pussies to terrorists. How many plots were foiled by these techniques and how does that not equate to being safer?
Oh yeah, recruitment tools for the terrorists right?
That's strange, because according to all of the worlds top foreign affairs analysts, including the U.S's own governmental advisory committee, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put the lives of Americans at greater risk.
But then, what do they know?
apparently they know nothing....the post i made that usamamason so gloriously stated "too long didn't read" also stated what byrnzie just said, and it also states that more useful information was obtained by making connections with the detainees instead of torturing them...maybe if he read it we would not have to keep repeating ourselves.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
DON CHERRY Canadian Hockey Commentator for CBC Television, was asked on
a local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of
torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from
the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car
battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will
save just one Canadian life, then I have only three things to say:
'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet..'
DON CHERRY Canadian Hockey Commentator for CBC Television, was asked on
a local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of
torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from
the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car
battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will
save just one Canadian life, then I have only three things to say:
'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet..'
I'd wager that this fella doesnt know what testicles are, in any shape or form.
However, your cartoon made me laugh, haha, Perrier!
DON CHERRY Canadian Hockey Commentator for CBC Television, was asked on
a local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of
torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from
the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car
battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will
save just one Canadian life, then I have only three things to say:
'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet..'
Again, are posts like this supposed to support your "argument"?! Because they're doing exactly the opposite.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
In related news, The Pentagon just released a photo of the Pakistani man who gave the CIA credible information that led them to Osama bin Laden. He is eligible to get the $25M reward the US Gov’t was offering.
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
“Well, I certainly would advocate it,” Cheney replied. “I’d be a strong supporter of it. We went to a lot of trouble to find out what we could do, how far we could go, what was legal and so forth. Out of that emerged what we called enhanced interrogation. It worked. It provided some absolutely vital pieces of intelligence. There is a study that was done by the CIA in the National Archives, some of it has been declassified now, that shows that enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed provided a vast treasure trove if you will of intelligence. It was a good program. It was a legal program. It was not torture. I would strongly recommend we continue it.”
thanks again GW for keeping us safe, you too Obama.
give me dick cheney, a board, a pitcher of water and five minutes and he will admit to kidnapping the lindbergh baby.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I don't think he knows what "legal" means. It sure doesn't mean "if we do it, it's legal". Maybe it does to him, I don't know.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
that piece of dung is the reason the neocon idealogy is dead, and he is the reason so many people hate america.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Torturing for truth
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 464.column
An old joke: "Why do elephants paint their toenails red?" I don't know. "So they can hide in the tomato patch." There are no elephants in the tomato patch. "See? It works."
That's the sort of logic deployed by defenders of the Bush administration's torture program. After being waterboarded, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted knowing someone later found to be Osama bin Laden's courier. The CIA eventually located the man and followed him to the house where bin Laden was killed. Voila! The information from Mohammed vindicates these methods.
But it turns out that Mohammed also lied about the courier, saying he was a retired nobody. From this, CIA officials now claim, they knew the guy had to be a big deal. It was a crucial clue.
That's right: When tortured detainees provide truthful information, they prove torture works, and when they lie, they prove it works. If Mohammed had broken into a chorus of "Y.M.C.A.," that would have proved the same.
This bizarre reasoning is one of the many oddities about the defense of torture. Another is that the advocates never, ever refer to it as torture.
Mark Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, wrote a column for The Washington Post defending what he called "enhanced interrogation techniques." Former Justice Department official John Yoo referred to them as "tough interrogations."
Let's be more specific. Mohammed underwent simulated drowning 183 times. Methods used on him and others, reports The New York Times, include "slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in stress positions and keeping them awake as long as 180 hours." The CIA admitted making detainees stand for up to 40 hours and dousing naked captives with cold water in chilled cells.
If treatment like this were inflicted on captured American soldiers, no American would dispute that it was torture. But when we resort to it, the likes of Thiessen and Yoo can't bring themselves to use the honest term. Calling it "enhanced interrogation" is like calling the Alabama tornadoes "enhanced weather."
The evidence that vicious methods work is modest. Matthew Alexander, who wrote about his experience as a military interrogator in Iraq in his book "Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist," says that far from being helpful, brutality usually makes it harder to get information from a prisoner.
Alexander, an Air Force Reserve officer who conducted or supervised some 1,300 interrogations using traditional techniques, told me, "I was surprised that the people we thought would be the hardest were the easiest to interrogate."
He cites the case of a Muslim scholar, a high-level al-Qaida operative who was "as hard-core as you could find." Using a non-coercive approach, "in six hours I convinced him to cooperate."
How can it be that a violent, determined enemy of the United States could be persuaded to talk without extreme measures? "He's human, he's not a robot," says Alexander. By establishing a personal connection, interrogators can induce prisoners to open up. But if detainees are abused, he found, "they quit talking."
Sometimes, no doubt, torture can loosen a tongue. But once a high-value operative is brutalized, there is no way to know what he might have divulged under more patient, humane interrogation. If he spills a secret after being waterboarded, it "proves" that torture works. If he withholds information, it "proves" that nothing else would have sufficed.
But what if torture does sometimes work? Mere effectiveness is not enough to justify it. Yoo was once asked about the legality of "crushing the testicles of a person's child," and he did not rule it out.
Why should he? If torturing a terrorist failed, wouldn't we be justified in torturing his wife or his children to get the truth?
If waterboarding is OK, why not crushing testicles? Why not pulling out fingernails? Why not the most agonizing methods an evil mind could devise? The advocates of waterboarding are much more eager to declare what is allowed than what is forbidden — if anything.
In the end, they don't really care about imposing limits, and they don't really care if torture is effective or not. Torture, in the minds of its apologists, is not a means to a good result. It's a good result all by itself.
Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
oh well, at least you admit it.
how about you do not reply to me if you are going to act like a 6 year old, okay?
if you want to further discussion then fine, but if you want to act childish then don't waste anybody's time by replying.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Dear me... the more you try to strengthen your case, the weaker it gets.
Cheney & Rumsfeld? That's the best you can do to support your position?! The men who had the most vested interest in trying to justify it? That makes about as much sense as saying, "Well, I know Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11, because he said he didn't."
So, it was not torture because Dick Cheney said it wasn't? But those who actually experienced said it was. Hmmm... who's more qualified to say so, I wonder?
It was legal because Dick Cheney said so? Even though many experts far more legally qualified than Dick Cheney said, actually, yes it is illegal. Who's more reliable? Hmmm... let me see...
In fact, I've already pointed out (though you might have missed it, since you only read the things that don't disturb your fantasy) the US has repeatedly referred to waterboarding as torture when other people do it, and has even prosecuted people as war criminals for using it. So, not to put too fine a point on it, but Dick Cheney is lying.
And PS.... shouting your argument doesn't make it any more valid.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Dick Cheney is a lying scumbag. Interesting that you believe everything that comes out of his hateful mouth.
'...critics of torture immediately rebutted the claims, arguing that the worst of the mistreatment in the CIA-run system of "black prisons" had been stopped by 2006 and that it took another five years to find Bin Laden. They said the key breakthroughs in the hunt were down to old-fashioned surveillance and intelligence techniques, cyber-snooping or via standard interrogations.
Deputy national security adviser John Brennan was directly asked in a TV interview if waterboarding had helped catch Bin Laden. "Not to my knowledge," he replied. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who is head of the Senate intelligence committee, told Time that there was no such evidence. "I do not believe that there is any evidence that this came from waterboarding," she said. "We're still looking into it, but so far, no."
Some human rights experts agreed, saying that there seemed little concrete evidence of a direct link. "There clearly was no smoking gun of a direct correlation between waterboarding and finding this suspect," said Geneve Mantri, government relations director for terrorism and counterterrorism and human rights at Amnesty International USA, referring to the courier who eventually led investigators to Bin Laden's hiding place.
Mantri said the hunt for Bin Laden had been long and involved many steps and no definitive breakthroughs had occurred during the Bush years when torture techniques were used. "This operation was a slow and gradual process of piecing together fragments of information. If the previous administration had got that [definitive] information they clearly did not act on it," he said...'
Well, if you ask me, that pretty much wraps up this thread.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yea, I'll take your word for that. You are probably well traveled/schooled. :?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
and now back on point...
Documents recently released by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) demonstrate the valuable information gained by so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” that ultimately led to the recent killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. A non-partisan watchdog group obtained the documents as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
These documents show that without ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ Osama bin Laden might still be hiding in his compound plotting to kill more innocents. The capture and killing of Osama bin Laden will prompt President Obama to rethink his ideological and political positions on enhanced interrogation techniques. President Obama can no longer attack the very intelligence techniques that led to his brightest day thus far as president,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
That's strange, because according to all of the worlds top foreign affairs analysts, including the U.S's own governmental advisory committee, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put the lives of Americans at greater risk.
But then, what do they know?
Oh yeah, recruitment tools for the terrorists right?
again, thanks GW...for not being a pussy.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
a local live radio talk show, what he thought about the allegations of
torture of suspected terrorists. His reply prompted his ejection from
the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.
HIS STATEMENT:
"If hooking up one raghead terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car
battery to get the truth out of the lying little camel shagger will
save just one Canadian life, then I have only three things to say:
'Red is positive, black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet..'
I'd wager that this fella doesnt know what testicles are, in any shape or form.
However, your cartoon made me laugh, haha, Perrier!
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Way to go George!