heres mine…

In fact, I find your comment, insincere. At Xmas time, no less.

Besides, I do not hate. If I see merits and flaws in an individual, I acknowledge both. The fact that I may recognize and point out a flaw in an individual that I may admire for other qualities makes me a poor politician by current American standards, but not a hater.

Do you hate? If so, who? Why? Do you find hate consuming more and more of your power for compassion in spirit and deed? Give it some thought.

Since bu$hler has destroyed all familiar terminology, I guess the USA’s request has to include every conceivable alternate term for “enemy combatant.” And for “enhanced.” Etc.

Another true example of bu$hCo’s ability to gum everything to death.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf

and mikegorse says

Here’s where we are. We are condeming Pelosi for orchestrated behavior of a scoff-law executive branch being mis-run by the VP of Torture while George nee Howdy Doody fiddles away your future and treasury.

We are arguing about who let the tapes get destroyed while the DOJ tells us they just watched the tapes last month.

MAJOR CONTRADITION by DOJ

Two days ago the New York Times web page carried the story C.I.A. Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations By MARK MAZZETTI – and beneath the story, a link to the letter from US Attorney, Chuck Rosenberg to Chief Judge Williams and Judge Brinkema explaining the tapes existence.

On page 2 of the PDF, paragraphs two and three, the solicitor clearly says “On September 13, 2007, an attorney for the CIA notified us of a discovery of a video tape of the interrogation of [redacted]. On September 19, 2007, we viewed that video tape and a transcript [redacted] of the interview.”

The next paragraph starts “After learning of the existence of the first video tape, we requested the CIA to perform an exhaustive review to determine whether it was in possession of any other such recording for any of the enemy combatant witnesses at issue in this case. CIA’s review, which now appears to be complete, uncovered the existence of a second video tape, as well as a short audio tape, both of which pertain to interrogations [redacted]. On October 18, we viewed the second video tape and listened to the audio tape, while reviewing transcripts.”

It appears to me the US Attorney has told the Judges he watched the video tapes in September and October of 2007, that Michael Hayden says were destroyed (”all copies”) in 2005. Is this as transparent a lie as it seems? Doesn’t anybody read the facts already in evidence?

WTF? These appear not to have anything to do with Moussaoui’s missing torture tape.

cinnamonape December 9th, 2007 at 6:30 am 79
In response to selise @ 27

Re: Pelosi knowing about the torture. We need to be careful about the sourcing in this. There are two “official” sources for the article, at least one appears to be a Congressman. The other appears to be a CIA official who was either directing or performing the “interrogation”.

Here’s my logic. The only individuals familiar with what these individuals actually saw in the briefing would be the participants themselves. The programs are so secret that the complaints regarding them are not even typed up by staffers, they are handwritten. Recall that Rockefeller complained about the FISA violations regarding domestic surveillance and wrote a copy of his own letter so that he could use it later.

So the fact that the briefing was made by a “virtual tour”, that it included waterboarding, who the Congressional Leaders who were present, the details of discussion means that the “sources” were individuals who were actually present. Roberts, according to the article, was not available for comment. I doubt Rockefeller would be the source (nor his predecessor Graham…who has denied being given any such information about waterboarding in any case). Pelosi wouldn’t be the source. That leaves only one Congressional source.

PORTER GOSS. And Goss later became CIA Director during the critical period when the recordings were destroyed. He was the one responsible for the appointment of Jose Rodriguez, the “model for Jack Bauer”, who destroyed the tapes. He was the one that forced the resignations or firings of dozens of CIA officers in the operations division because they were “not aggressive enough” in dealing with al Qaida and terrorism.

He’s gonna be one that most likely authorized the destruction of the tapes, me thinks. So we have a source who would be very intent on suggesting that no one objected to the torture. And note the careful phrasing.

a congressional source familiar with Pelosi’s position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage — they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice — and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

Hmm! How could a Congressional Source KNOW what Pelosi did or didn’t do AT THE TIME. How would they KNOW what she was familiar with? Remember that this was strictly classified information. The only “source” who could even have had a chance to know whether she had said anything at the meeting who appears to be talking is PORTER GOSS. Add to this fact that he would be the only one to know if Pelosi wrote a letter of complaint, as CIA Director (if he actually looked at the files and the WH provided him with it).

This reminds me a little bit of the effort that Scooter Libby tried to use to make himself up as a “Congressional aide”.

Who is the “second official” then? My suspicion is, since there needs to be a confirming source, is that this represents the CIA official who briefed the Congressional Intelligence Committee representatives. That would be someone who directed the torture interrogation programs. Rodriguez was “unavailable for comment” so perhaps it was one of the interrogators themselves. Amazing that they would be talking to the media when the whole rationale behind this was to protect their identities! The risk was supposedly to come from the carefully proscribed court process? Seems that this doesn’t fall under the “protected source” criteria that Congress just authorized for “reporter-source” protection, BTW.

So why would a CIA official even risk reporting this unless they themselves were one of those under threat of Prosecution…as all of this would have come out during any sort of trial IF TRUE.

But here we appear to have two individuals very concerned about covering up their own roles in the destruction of the tapes. appearing as sources asserting that Pelosi and either Rockefeller or Graham were informed about waterboarding and made no objections. That certainly diminishes their reliability, and I’m surprised that the WashPo doesn’t see that.

Maybe Pelosi will insist that the CIA release the Virtual Tour to Congress, and investigate just who is sourcing all this material.

BTW Recall that Mukasey is running his own investigation of the CIA’s Inspector General who is looking into just such criminal activities by the CIA. The IG was the one that initially brought the tapes to the attention of the courts.

http://firedoglake.com/2007/12/09/sunday-morning-sillies-sad-sacks-has-beens-and-butlicks/#comment-1139731