Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You guys are funny...and really missing the point.
To "work" means that you get the intel that you wouldn't have gotten using less abusive means.
-spence
|
I cannot get past the utter absurdity of this statement. So if something does what you hoped it would do, you can't say it "worked" unless you can
prove that the result could not have been achieved any other way??
Spence, using your logic (or lack thereof)...there was a house fire in my neighborhood last year. The fire department came and put out the fire. USING YOUR LOGIC, I cannot say that calling the fire department "worked", because it might have started raining and that might have put out the fire anyway...There's no way to prove that calling the fire department was the only conceivable way to put out the fire, so Spence would not say that calling the F.D. "worked".
Is that about right, Spence? Do I have that right? You sticking by that?
No one can say for sure what would have happened if things unfolded differently. But I do know 2 things in the "here and now"...the fire department put out that fire, and enhanced interrogation (according to the current and two previous CIA chiefs) produced actionable intelligence. Spence, I am sorry if that fact spits in the face of one of the more asinine platforms of the liberal agenda...but it's still a fact.
How do we ever come together as a nation...we have crazy conservatives who still insist Obama wasn't born here, and we have liberals still saying that waterboarding never works...what do you say to people who won't concede irrefutable facts?
Threaded Mode