Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,717
edits
Changes
Sorry, none of it can be used
He said, "we don't torture," because he doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Why would he say it was a "very important tool" in that investigation, had it not been used? -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
He said, "we don't torture," because he doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Why would he say it was a "very important tool" in that investigation, had it not been used? -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 15:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:The question posited by the host on behalf of listeners was
::'' if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we [the good folks in the Heartland] are all for it, '''if it saves American lives'''."
:''The Guardian'' conventiently left off both the hypothetical nature of the question, more specifically, and most importantly, ''the qualifier'', "'''if it saves American lives'''". Neither the "No brainer" headline they ran with, or the article abstract, carry the qualifier to the hypothetical, "torture is a no-brainer '''if it saves American lives'''." Thus by no tortured reasoning now can any of these sources, including the White House transcript, be used in this article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)