http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090514/capt.71343b5dee664a628637bc888fa4a45c.pelosi_tortu re_dclb101.jpg?x=213&y=331&xc=1&yc=1&wc=263&hc=409&q=85&sig=7bBUHLQ6ZePP39Djp0Uiqg--
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, and a harsh critic of the Bush administration, especially (at least lately) its use of "enhanced" interegation techniques on some terror suspects has been stung recently by accusations that she knew about the waterboarding since at least 2002 and said and did nothing. So now she claims that the CIA lied to her about the use of enhanced techniques in questioning prisoners and that the CIA misleads congress "all the time".

Leon Pinneta, chief of the CIA, jumped to his agencie's defense saying:

"It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress . . . CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' "

Pelosi has really backed herself into a corner here. The evidence seems to show that, like pretty much everyone else back in 2002, Pelosi was more concerned with protecting the country than the civil rights of terror suspects. Chuck Schumer (of all people) said it best:

"I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."

"It's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used," he added. "But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal."
But now Pelosi wants any member of the Bush administration who ever even heard the term "waterboarding" thrown in prison. But how can she go after them when questions remain about what she knew and what she did or didn't do?. So now she's turning into Sgt Schultz screaming:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ay9VJUft2tE/R-pnQCBa_nI/AAAAAAAAASI/VP8ULPNGcCE/s320/I%2Bknow%2Bnothing.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162009/postopinion/editorials/pelosi_in_a_pickle_169535.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture

I think it is pretty clearly Pelosi who figured that her own political triangulation on the issue would be overlooked by the press.

Hmmm .... On one side, we have our natural distrust of politicians, plus a Republican's open hatred of Democrats, plus an especial hatred for Nancy Pelosi. On the other side, we have a secret intelligence organization that is known to lie, has botched intelligence badly enough to start a war over it, and has even, in this very scandal, managed to assert incorrect information (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363).

Or we have our natural distrust of politicians mitigated by political sympathies. And on the other side, we have a secret intelligence organization that is known to lie, has botched intelligence badly enough to start a war over it, and has even, in this very scandal, managed to assert incorrect information.

Right now, with the information we have, favor is Pelosi's.
____________________

Notes:

"Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings". All Things Considered. May 15, 2009. NPR.org. Accessed May 17, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363

"It's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used," he added. "But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal." That's why we have laws, moral rules, religious strictures, etc.

People panic, or are presented with sudden opportunity, or get caught in a personal bind somehow, and they do wrong.

The key,of course, is a general assumption of exposure and public accountability. We can forgive, but not accept.

Meanwhile, we can assume that the CIA has various leverage on various members of the US Congress, and that some Democrats have or have had hidden pressures on them in this issue -or, as in the case of Diane Feinstein, the political circumstances of the media blitz after 9/11, etc, not so hidden. Possibly Pelosi, a Beltway Dem who has been often and comfortably cooperative (and even more often oddly inept in opposition) with W&Co and their agenda over the years, is one of them.

We can also assume that the CIA has no particular allegiance to telling the truth, and is accustomed to employing deliberate deceptions and use the media to spread them. We have many years of evidence for that in the past, and no reason to believe any different of them now.

When we get an accurate and complete accounting of the events, Pelosi's role will become clear. We have not yet even put the likes of Richard Cheney under oath, not yet even obtained sworn and verifiable testimony from the central figures involved, or even begun an official investigation.

So far, the CIA has been far more of an obstacle than an aid in that effort.

I think it is pretty clearly Pelosi who figured that her own political triangulation on the issue would be overlooked by the press.Democrats, used to a cooperative media, often get tripped up that way. Because, while the media clearly sympathizes with the left, it just can't resist a juicy story

Democrats, used to a cooperative media, often get tripped up that way. Because, while the media clearly sympathizes with the left, it just can't resist a juicy story

Dems cooperative media? Well since you have clearly figured out how to traverse from reality to reality could you tell the rest of us.

Democrats, used to a cooperative media - - Wow.

I would never have believed it possible, but it appears that a thorough soaking in the media effluvia of the first three years of W's administration would actually be a cleansing experience for some folks.

... would actually be a cleansing experience for some folks.

The same sympathetic media that tried to bring down a Democratic president over a blowjob, who aided and abetted a Republican president's fraudulent call to war, who harassed a black presidential candidate who happened to be a Democrat about what an angry preacher said, who didn't feel the need to dig deeply into what the preachers for two white presidential candidates who happen to be Republicans said ....

Democrats were used to a liberal press maybe twenty years ago. However, once society threw out integrity in favor of economic growth, decency in favor of profit, juicy tidbits became the staple of the press.

I find it interesting, our topic poster's uncanny ability to sabotage himself by making everything about politics instead of reality.

At this point, were I president, I would turn to Leon Panetta (or whoever I put in that job) and say, "The Agency is no longer reliable. Given their expected role in our national security, your job, Mr. Director, is to oversee the disassembly of this organization. It's done. We'll build a new one, get new leadership, and be very meticulous in farming actual talent from the former."

The CIA is done. It should be shut down, retasked, and reopened under a new name with new management.

That's how badly it's damaged.

At this point, were I president, I would turn to Leon Panetta (or whoever I put in that job) and say, "The Agency is no longer reliable. Given their expected role in our national security, your job, Mr. Director, is to oversee the disassembly of this organization. It's done. We'll build a new one, get new leadership, and be very meticulous in farming actual talent from the former."

The CIA is done. It should be shut down, retasked, and reopened under a new name with new management.

Interestingly enough, I have to agree.

From what I've learned over the past few years (and the issues you mentioned aside), the CIA is too glued to its old Cold War mentality to be as effective as it needs to be in the world we live in today. It seems to wallow in its past "victories" against the Reds rather than adjust to the needs of today (i.e. it still struggles to attract strong talent to gather effective intelligence from the two main areas it should be: China and the Mideast).

It'll never happen though... well, at least I think it'll never happen. Who knows. Maybe it will fuck-up even worse in the years to come and be dismantled altogether.

~String

Dems cooperative media? Well since you have clearly figured out how to traverse from reality to reality could you tell the rest of us.
You guys really must live on another planet. Evidence? Well, you might consider Obama's recent little joke at while speaking to a large gathering of prominent members of the media. Looking out at the adoring crowd, Obama declared:

"Most of you covered me (pause)... All of you voted for me."
He then offered his apologies to the Fox table.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/dinnerdish/0509/All_of_you_voted_for_me.html
Here's the video:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22320.html

And here's some info on media coverage of Dem v Reps:

Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.

* The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.

* NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).

# Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.

*The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.

* While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.

* The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.

* In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obamaExecSum.asp

Last year, Harvard and PEJ studied presidential campaign stories from January through May in print, TV, radio and Internet outlets. Surprise, surprise, it turns out Democrats got more stories (49 percent) than Republicans (31 percent). Also, the tone of the coverage was more positive for Democrats (35 percent) than for Republicans (26 percent).

"Not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall," the Harvard study authors say, "the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking." For example, 59 percent of front-page stories about Democrats in 11 newspapers had a "clear, positive message vs. 11 percent that carried a negative tone."

Obama's coverage was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative. Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. Yet only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive, and 40 percent were negative.

On TV, evening network newscasts gave Democrats 49 percent of their campaign coverage and Republicans 28 percent. As for tone, 39.5 percent of the Democratic coverage was positive and 17.1 percent negative, while 18.6 percent of the Republican coverage was positive versus 37.2 percent negative. http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/major-media-decide-vote-obama.html
Please provide some similiar documentation of the conservative bias, other than at Fox. I'll readily admit that they'll throw anyone under the bus if the story is juicy enough (ie Clinton, although you'll note that Drudge broke that story), but the general tone clearly has a leftwing bias.

Please provide some similiar documentation of the conservative bias, other than at Fox.

Please provide some evidence that what you assert is actually bias. As in, please provide some evidence that covering the facts honestly wouldn't result in similar numbers.

You know, something that doesn't come from a conservative propaganda house or a regular opinion contributor to WorldNetDaily?

See, the thing is that this is symptomatic of a general complaint I've been hearing from conservatives for years. Their arguments, at their best, are shallow and statistically-oriented. And then they exaggerate the significance of the statistics. In the 2008 election, for instance, the press didn't officially turn on McCain/Palin until the polling trends were obvious, the campaign was in disarray, and Palin demonstrated herself repeatedly unable to cope with even the silliest, most lightweight of scandals.

I love the notion that a story against a liberal is just a juicy tidbit, but a story against a conservative is liberal bias. And I adore the insistence that the media's bias is liberal. It does very poorly for the party that tries to appeal to capitalism to have to admit that the problem with the press is that the capitalists got their way. The media isn't about truth, it's about money. And the disaster that news media has become ought to be an embarrassment to the capitalists, especially those who complain about its content and coverage.

And, apparently, it is.

Conservatives have gotten their way for a long, long time. That's just the way it goes when a staple of your party is to exploit ignorance. Look at what happens to Democrats when they play the same stupid game: they get more and more conservative. Among Americans, it is still observable that the well-founded rational argument faces an uphill battle against basic ignorant superstition. Civil rights, torture, war, law-and-order? The gays will steal your children, the terrorists will kill your children, Saddam Hussein will kill your children, the crackheads will kill your children! And if that doesn't work, make it about money: The liberals will steal your money!

This is all old bullshit. Where we are at in the process is that people are growing more and more fatigued with it. Yet conservatives keep on coming with the same old crap. Their best hope, then, seems to be to bludgeon people into submission, create a sense of hopelessness that nothing will ever get better, and then maybe folks will readjust to the new reality and somehow validate all of this vicious, juvenile, hateful excrement flung about by a bunch of angry conservatives.

Really, when that's the best conservatives have to offer, it's time to reconsider their definition of conservatism. Oh, right. I forgot, that would violate conservatives' rights. So everyone else should reconsider reality and tailor it to suit the needs of conservatives.

You guys really must live on another planet. Evidence? Well, you might consider Obama's recent little joke at while speaking to a large gathering of prominent members of the media. Looking out at the adoring crowd, Obama declared:

"Most of you covered me (pause)... All of you voted for me."
He then offered his apologies to the Fox table.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/dinnerdish/0509/All_of_you_voted_for_me.html
Here's the video:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22320.html

And here's some info on media coverage of Dem v Reps:

Barack Obama had a crucial advantage over his rivals this year: the support of the national media, especially the three broadcast networks. At every step of his national political career, network reporters showered the Illinois Senator with glowing media coverage, building him up as a political celebrity and exhibiting little interest in investigating his past associations or exploring the controversies that could have threatened his campaign.

* The three broadcast networks treated Obama to nearly seven times more good press than bad — 462 positive stories (34% of the total), compared with only 70 stories (just 5%) that were critical.

* NBC Nightly News was the most lopsided, with 179 pro-Obama reports (37%), more than ten times the number of anti-Obama stories (17, or 3%). The CBS Evening News was nearly as skewed, with 156 stories spun in favor of Obama (38%), compared to a mere 21 anti-Obama reports (5%). ABC’s World News was the least slanted, but still tilted roughly four-to-one in Obama’s favor (127 stories to 32, or 27% to 7%).

# Barack Obama received his best press when it mattered most, as he debuted on the national scene. All of the networks lavished him with praise when he was keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and did not produce a single negative story about Obama (out of 81 total reports) prior to the start of his presidential campaign in early 2007.

*The networks downplayed or ignored major Obama gaffes and scandals. Obama’s relationship with convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko was the subject of only two full reports (one each on ABC and NBC) and mentioned in just 15 other stories. CBS and NBC also initially downplayed controversial statements from Obama’s longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright, but heavily praised Obama’s March 18 speech on race relations.

* While Obama’s worst media coverage came during the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, even then the networks offered two positive stories for every one that carried a negative spin (21% to 9%). Obama’s best press of the year came after he won the North Carolina primary on May 6 — after that, 43 percent of stories were favorable to Obama, compared to just one percent that were critical.

* The networks minimized Obama’s liberal ideology, only referring to him as a "liberal" 14 times in four years. In contrast, reporters found twice as many occasions (29) to refer to Obama as either a "rock star," "rising star" or "superstar" during the same period.

* In covering the campaign, network reporters highlighted voters who offered favorable opinions about Obama. Of 147 average citizens who expressed an on-camera opinion about Obama, 114 (78%) were pro-Obama, compared to just 28 (19%) that had a negative view, with the remaining five offering a mixed opinion.
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obamaExecSum.asp

Last year, Harvard and PEJ studied presidential campaign stories from January through May in print, TV, radio and Internet outlets. Surprise, surprise, it turns out Democrats got more stories (49 percent) than Republicans (31 percent). Also, the tone of the coverage was more positive for Democrats (35 percent) than for Republicans (26 percent).

"Not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall," the Harvard study authors say, "the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking." For example, 59 percent of front-page stories about Democrats in 11 newspapers had a "clear, positive message vs. 11 percent that carried a negative tone."

Obama's coverage was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative. Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. Yet only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive, and 40 percent were negative.

On TV, evening network newscasts gave Democrats 49 percent of their campaign coverage and Republicans 28 percent. As for tone, 39.5 percent of the Democratic coverage was positive and 17.1 percent negative, while 18.6 percent of the Republican coverage was positive versus 37.2 percent negative. http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/major-media-decide-vote-obama.html
Please provide some similiar documentation of the conservative bias, other than at Fox. I'll readily admit that they'll throw anyone under the bus if the story is juicy enough (ie Clinton, although you'll note that Drudge broke that story), but the general tone clearly has a leftwing bias.

A great amount of writing but not a lot of substances. Number of positive to negative stories is a completely bullshit way of looking at. A left wing fuck up is treated more harshly than right wing( unless its a sex scandel) Number of stories per a positive or negative event is a better way to look. and having the more interesting race more covered isn't bias

Interestingly enough, I have to agree.

From what I've learned over the past few years (and the issues you mentioned aside), the CIA is too glued to its old Cold War mentality to be as effective as it needs to be in the world we live in today. It seems to wallow in its past "victories" against the Reds rather than adjust to the needs of today (i.e. it still struggles to attract strong talent to gather effective intelligence from the two main areas it should be: China and the Mideast).

It'll never happen though... well, at least I think it'll never happen. Who knows. Maybe it will fuck-up even worse in the years to come and be dismantled altogether.

~String

Really String? Hmm? and the Agency which is noted for it's record keeping, you don't think that they don't have a verbatim record of the briefing and who was there and what was presented.

Yes, lets declassify those records, and see who is lying, just as we should declassify the redacted sections of the released AI's that show just exactly what information was recovered, and how it affect the progress of attacks on this country and other countries around the world, we have several CIA Director, from both parties who have said the enhanced interogations did give actionable intelligence, at a rate greater than any other interrogations method used against high value terrorist leaders.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090514/capt.71343b5dee664a628637bc888fa4a45c.pelosi_tortu re_dclb101.jpg?x=213&y=331&xc=1&yc=1&wc=263&hc=409&q=85&sig=7bBUHLQ6ZePP39Djp0Uiqg--
Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, and a harsh critic of the Bush administration, especially (at least lately) its use of "enhanced" interegation techniques on some terror suspects has been stung recently by accusations that she knew about the waterboarding since at least 2002 and said and did nothing. So now she claims that the CIA lied to her about the use of enhanced techniques in questioning prisoners and that the CIA misleads congress "all the time".

Leon Pinneta, chief of the CIA, jumped to his agencie's defense saying:

"It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress . . . CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.' "

Pelosi has really backed herself into a corner here. The evidence seems to show that, like pretty much everyone else back in 2002, Pelosi was more concerned with protecting the country than the civil rights of terror suspects. Chuck Schumer (of all people) said it best:

"I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake."

"It's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used," he added. "But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal."
But now Pelosi wants any member of the Bush administration who ever even heard the term "waterboarding" thrown in prison. But how can she go after them when questions remain about what she knew and what she did or didn't do?. So now she's turning into Sgt Schultz screaming:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ay9VJUft2tE/R-pnQCBa_nI/AAAAAAAAASI/VP8ULPNGcCE/s320/I%2Bknow%2Bnothing.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162009/postopinion/editorials/pelosi_in_a_pickle_169535.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090514/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture

It's hard to know who is lying about what, and whether they are deliberately lying or if they are merely repeating miscalculated information.

I can only hope that the country is being run by people with hearts in their chests and at least a little bit of selflessness.

Really String? Hmm? and the Agency which is noted for it's record keeping, you don't think that they don't have a verbatim record of the briefing and who was there and what was presented.

Yes, lets declassify those records, and see who is lying, just as we should declassify the redacted sections of the released AI's that show just exactly what information was recovered, and how it affect the progress of attacks on this country and other countries around the world, we have several CIA Director, from both parties who have said the enhanced interogations did give actionable intelligence, at a rate greater than any other interrogations method used against high value terrorist leaders.

Yeah why don't they just declassify these records? If they aren't lying what are they afraid of. If I could easily prove what someone is saying is wrong I would do it, so what they waiting around for? Prove who is right and who is wrong and lets move on with our lives.

Yeah why don't they just declassify these records? If they aren't lying what are they afraid of. If I could easily prove what someone is saying is wrong I would do it, so what they waiting around for? Prove who is right and who is wrong and lets move on with our lives.

It isn't the CIA who gets to declassify the records, it is Congress, at the request of the CIA or the President.

Now why didn't the President declassify the whole AI, files? instead of releasing heavily redacted excerpts?

What was under all those blacked out redaction?

Remember it is the Democrats who are now the ones in charge of Congress, and the committees, and the CIA.

Hmmm?

Really String? Hmm? and the Agency which is noted for it's record keeping, you don't think that they don't have a verbatim record of the briefing and who was there and what was presented.

Yes, lets declassify those records, and see who is lying, The lefties have been trying to do that for a long time. No luck so far.

A lot of the records have been destroyed, lost, etc. A lot were never kept, apparently. The rest have been stonewalled for years.

Number of stories per a positive or negative event is a better way to look ....

Even this isn't as reliable as we need it to be. As Madanthonywayne mentioned, there are "juicy tidbits". Trying to determine the genuine scale of a given news item can be tricky. For instance, the Harvard and PEJ studies discussed above cover January-May, 2008, a period when the GOP campaigns underwent a transformation from serious disarray to grudging nomination to muddling around with unspectacular politicking. The Media Research Center report restricts itself to three broadcast networks, whose presentation of the news is exceptionally limited by format constraints.

In the case of the former, pointing out the truth, that the GOP was in serious disarray, would be considered "negative" press. Covering criticism of a presidential candidate (Tom Tancredo) calling for nuclear strikes against Saudi Arabia would be considered "negative" press. Figuring what portion of the negative press reflects bias (and then what kind of bias) and what portion simply reflects reality? Imagine that I am a news editor who quashes yet another story about some truly screwed-up thing a Republican said: that equals one less story in the press. The complaint about raw numbers suggests that instead of simply quashing the negative press, I should make an extraordinary effort to provide some good press instead. In other words, in order to not appear biased, I should behave in a specifically biased manner.

Even Larry Elder (http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/major-media-decide-vote-obama.html) concedes the business aspect ... sort of:


Washington Post ombudsperson Deborah Howell wrote a column in her own newspaper comparing the paper's front-page coverage of Democratic nominee Barack Obama with that of Republican nominee John McCain.

Her findings? Examining stories from June 4, when Obama became the presumptive nominee, until Aug. 15, the Post ran 142 political stories about Obama, compared with 96 about McCain. As to front-page stories, Obama was 35 to McCain's 13.

What about photographs? The Post ran, during this time, 143 pics of Obama versus 100 of McCain.

The paper's assistant managing editor for politics explained the discrepancy this way: "We make our own decisions about what we consider newsworthy. We are not garment workers measuring our product every day to fulfill somebody's quota." In other words, Obama makes good copy, and this is, after all, a business. Fair enough. (But what's he got against garment workers?)

But then Elders works to mitigate this point:


But why, then — when the Post's Howell pointed out the discrepancy in photographs — did the disparity disappear over the next two weeks? Howell writes that since she first pointed out the lopsided nature of the photo coverage: "Editors have run almost the same number of photos — 21 of Obama and 22 of McCain — since they realized the disparity. McCain is almost even with Obama in Page 1 photos — 10 to 9."

Elders presumes causation, but there is one critical difference between the samples:


• Sample 1 (asserting bias): ±72 days
• Sample 2 (mitigating business considerations): <13 days

Furthermore, John McCain formally clinched the GOP nomination in March, 2008. Barack Obama effectively clinched in June, at the beginning of the longer sample, and Hillary Clinton refused to concede. There was a big fight taking place in the Democratic Party, and plenty of commentary going around suggesting its weakness because of infighting. Hell, I could even hear that on the "liberal" NPR. Furthermore, if Elder's suggestion is to be taken seriously, it would imply that the Washington Post showed a concerted conservative bias during the second period, as McCain got a greater share of front page space during a period that coincided with the Democratic National Convention and preceded his announcement of Gov. Palin as his vice-presidential nominee. In other words, while all eyes were on the Democrats, the Post apparently went out of its way to boost McCain's coverage.

So, yes, I can understand if a news organization decides that the question of whether or not the first serious black presidential contender defeating the first serious female presidential contender might tear the Democratic Party apart is a newsworthy issue. And, in retrospect, given the decline in the health of the Republican Party over the last couple years, one would not be too far off base to wonder if maybe the whole question of whether the Democrats would fracture over the Obama-Clinton split was just a bit overplayed in order to accommodate this need for statistical, rather than substantive, fairness.

2008 was an extraordinary cycle. We saw the nation's first serious black and female contenders for the presidential ticket slug it out in one of the most contentious primary races in recent memory. Right there are three newsworthy items: black, female, and intensity of campaign. Yes, there will be increased coverage of these aspects. We also saw one of the most irresponsible vice-presidential candidate selections in history, with Sarah Palin all but sealing a Democratic victory even while the press tried to make excuses for John McCain. Yes, Sarah Palin was exceptionally newsworthy, and it's nobody's fault but her own if a journalist cannot muster enough deliberate bias to spin the spectacle of her ignorance, vice, and hypocrisy into something positive.

In part because he is the first black president, and also because he succeeds one of the most disastrous presidential administrations in history, Barack Obama is subject to the kind of scrutiny we could only wish the white guy from Texas who succeeded one of our better presidents faced.

Even Glenn Greenwald, widely viewed among conservatives as harshly partisan, is going after Obama on a regular basis for the same things he criticized Bush for, namely human rights and civil liberties. He even recently accepted the Wall Street Journal editorial assertion (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/16/obama/index.html) that the resuming military tribunals for terror suspects will be identical to the Bush administration's. While that might be a fair worry despite claims that there will be changes to the process, it reminds of two things: Greenwald will pursue his own outlook, and Obama is not exempt from his criticism.

And this hints toward something obvious: What conservatives call "liberal" media bias isn't liberal at all. Genuine liberals are gnashing their teeth and wringing their hands as the Obama administration hands them one disappointment after another. The only ones among us who are left on Obama's bandwagon are those who accepted that they were signing on for four years. He has about three and a half years left to make good among that crowd.

In the meantime, the "liberal" media bent over backwards to present Bush-administration Pentagon mouthpieces as genuine commentary, and the oh-so-reviled NBC news division? Well, Brian Williams has basically run screaming from that one, stopping occasionally to throw a stone at critics who charge that propaganda parrots should be labeled as such.

The "liberal" media tried to tack Obama to the shed over Rev. Wright's disaffection toward what the nation has become without ever exploring the deeper themes of that story—e.g., How did a faithful Marine who was once directly entrusted with the life of a President of the United States come to be so damn angry at America?—while overlooking condemning statements from a white preacher (Sarah Palin's) or the genocidal lunacy of a white preacher signed on as the spiritual advisor to the McCain campaign (Rod Parsley).

The "liberal" media chose specifically to focus on petty issues like flag pins; and apparently a black man is held to a higher standard while saluting the flag than a white man. Yeah, that from the "liberal" press. Oh, and by the way, you know when Sarah Palin gave a shout-out and expressed her love for that Alaskan political party? Yeah, a candidate giving props to a political party backed by the Iranians? That's not something the "liberal" media needs to worry about, is it?

Oh, yeah ... back to the beginning here. Yes, there are far better ways to look at media coverage than raw statistics based on a subjective notion of positive and negative. And, indeed, per issue coverage, while not perfect, is among those methods. As to the rest, I suppose I'm just not sure what to think of the fact that conservatives are still pushing this theory. If a genuine and deliberate liberal media bias was present, one would think the conservatives would have scored a substantial hit by now. Either they're making it all up, or they're simply incompetent. I can't figure which is the kinder indictment.
____________________

Notes:

Elder, Larry. "Major Media Decide -- Vote Obama". August 28, 2008. Creators.com. Accessed May 17, 2009. http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/major-media-decide-vote-obama.html

Greenwald, Glenn. "The NYT sums up Obama's civil liberties record in one paragraph". Unclaimed Territory. May 16, 2009. Salon.com. Accessed May 17, 2009. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/16/obama/index.html

Really String? Hmm? and the Agency which is noted for it's record keeping, you don't think that they don't have a verbatim record of the briefing and who was there and what was presented.

Yes, lets declassify those records, and see who is lying, just as we should declassify the redacted sections of the released AI's that show just exactly what information was recovered, and how it affect the progress of attacks on this country and other countries around the world, we have several CIA Director, from both parties who have said the enhanced interogations did give actionable intelligence, at a rate greater than any other interrogations method used against high value terrorist leaders.

Buffalo, did you read my post? I never said anything about the Pelosi issue, did I? I was talking exclusively about intelligence gathering. Please re-read my post as a reference to the point I was making.

Note: I'm also for declassifying the information gathered. If I have a right to know what was done and what tools were used, then I should have the right to know what came from such actions.

~String

Buffalo, did you read my post? I never said anything about the Pelosi issue, did I? I was talking exclusively about intelligence gathering. Please re-read my post as a reference to the point I was making.

Note: I'm also for declassifying the information gathered. If I have a right to know what was done and what tools were used, then I should have the right to know what came from such actions.

~String


And were did I mention Nancy, (like a deer caught in the head lights) Pelosi? and you don't have any Idea of just what or what not the CIA has been effective on, and I have a bare inkling from my service time and things that I came to barely know about, just how effective the CIA really is, 99.5% of what they do never comes to light, it is classified and stays classified, what you hear about are the major screw ups, or the political posturing of the liberals, not the sucess's of the CIA.

Again, the Constitution is not a suicde pact;


I n 1798, during the first Adams administration, Congress passed the Alien Enemies Act.

In Ch. 3, § 1288 of his Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story described the Alien laws this way:


One (the Alien act) authorized the president to order out of the country such aliens, as he should deem dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States; or should have reasonable grounds to suspect to be concerned in any treasonable, or secret machinations against the government of the United States, under severe penalties for disobedience.

The Alien law -- passed by Congress and signed by the president -- granted what can be fairly said to be robust means for the executive branch to defend the United States against non-citizens suspected of threatening America's safety. Today, these are precisely the kind of powers the Bush administration claims to be *inherent* in Art. II's "defending" clause (otherwise known as the "commander-in-chief clause) and beyond regulation by Congress.

Here is how Justice Story, in 1833, described in Ch. 3, § 1288 of his Commentaries the arguments of those advocating the constitutionality of the Alien laws:


The ground of the advocates, in favour of these laws, was, that they resulted from the right and duty in the government of self-preservation, and the like duty and protection of its functionaries in the proper discharge of their official duties.

Or you might say, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and the president is duty-bound to defend the citizens of this country by whatever means he deems necessary."


What we do know, at least, on the subject of enemy aliens -- with the Constitution less than 10 years old -- is that the Congress found it *necessary and proper* to pass laws in order to authorize the president to act. And Adams made no claim of inherent executive power in response.

Note: I'm also for declassifying the information gathered. If I have a right to know what was done and what tools were used, then I should have the right to know what came from such actions. Interesting argument - let's apply it to wiretapping and aerial bombardment.

Interesting argument - let's apply it to wiretapping and aerial bombardment.

Fine. Whatever. But if this administration is so obsessed with openness, then so be it. Why not let us know what was gained, if anything at all. What the hell, it might end up being that nothing was gained. All the better. I still want to know.

~String

Fine. Whatever. But if this administration is so obsessed with openness, then so be it. Why not let us know what was gained, if anything at all. What the hell, it might end up being that nothing was gained. All the better. I still want to know.

~String

One question? where is the right to know in the Constitution?

Fine. Whatever. But if this administration is so obsessed with openness, then so be it. Why not let us know what was gained, if anything at all. What the hell, it might end up being that nothing was gained. All the better. I still want to know. There's no way to know. It certainly isn't in any of those redacted parts of the reports - because they don't necessarily include what was already known or available to be learned without the abuse, and they don't (can't) include what knowledge was prevented from being acquired as an effect of an abuse policy or of concealment under false information believed, and so forth.

And it makes no difference to the legal status of the torturing policies and enactments.

And most of the information you would require to make any of these judgments is elsewhere.

These are brainwashing and intimidation techniques, not information acquisition techniques. The info gained is hardly relevant.

There's no way to know.

Horse shit. When you're an expert in intellignece, then you can make that judgment. Since all evidence is that you are not, then don't tell me "there's no way to know." The only way to know is to release the info.

It's patently ridiculous that you are somehow opposed to the entire ordeal, but are supportive of keeping parts of the operation sub rosa. The only explanation I can think of, is that it might sway the American public's opinion in favor, IF, the efforts did save a city. But whatever. I still want to know.


It certainly isn't in any of those redacted parts of the reports - because they don't necessarily include what was already known or available to be learned without the abuse, and they don't (can't) include what knowledge was prevented from being acquired as an effect of an abuse policy or of concealment under false information believed, and so forth.

Well, that's your opinion and your speculation. I don't give a shit what was NOT acquired, only what was.


And it makes no difference to the legal status of the torturing policies and enactments.

Uh, great. I don't care. I'm not talking about the legal status of torture, only what may or may not have been gained. If the prosecutors see fit to bring the perpetrators to justice, more power to them. But I'm not talking about the legal case.


And most of the information you would require to make any of these judgments is elsewhere.

Oh, 'cause you've seen all the documents and have done all the legal research to come to that conclusion. Sorry, your speculation doesn't pass the smell test. You have no clue where the information is, and until you do, please don't bore us with your speculation. The info is somewhere, and if it isn't then we REALLY need to know that part as well.


These are brainwashing and intimidation techniques, not information acquisition techniques. The info gained is hardly relevant.

Is that your expert legal opinion spoken as fact? It's only irrelevant to you. In any prosecuted, you can bet it would come up. I'd be willing to wager that most Americans would like to know what was gained--if not out of some sense of legal curiosity, then at least out of morbid fascination. Whatever the reason, people apparently have the right to know what was done, then they have the right to know what was obtained.

~String

One question? where is the right to know in the Constitution?

Nowhere. But since this administration is so obsessed with openness, and has seen fit to release all this information about torture, then I'd like to see what was obtained.

~String

And were did I mention Nancy, (like a deer caught in the head lights) Pelosi? and you don't have any Idea of just what or what not the CIA has been effective on, and I have a bare inkling from my service time and things that I came to barely know about, just how effective the CIA really is, 99.5% of what they do never comes to light, it is classified and stays classified, what you hear about are the major screw ups, or the political posturing of the liberals, not the sucess's of the CIA.

Again, the Constitution is not a suicde pact;

Buffalo, is this your argument? You're going to pester me on what I do and do not know? It's patently ignorant for you to tell me what I don't know, and you certainly don't see this tact from me, directed at you. You have no clue what I do or what I know, and I'm not going to let that become the substance of the debate. This, Buffalo, is how you make enemies on this website.

But, or shits and giggles, a number people have written on the failings & successes of the CIA. Steve Coll, Lawrence Wright & Tim Weiner being three of them who's writings I've read. While that doesn't make me an expert, it does give me some wiggle room in fomenting an informed opinion. Just because someone isn't you or doesn't have your history, Buffalo, doesn't remove the legitimacy of their ideas.

I do know, for a fact, that the CIA currently fails to attract talented Chinese and Arabic linguists (this disclosed to the Congress). I do know, from a close friend who's associated with and has studied the Agency, that their entire culture is still locked into the Cold War glory days.

~String

Nowhere. But since this administration is so obsessed with openness, and has seen fit to release all this information about torture, then I'd like to see what was obtained.

~String

Yes, I would like to see that, and I wonder why they are stalling?

There is a difference in aggressive interrogation and torture, plus the fact of what you want, a confession? or information?

If you want a confession, torture will always work, it has been proven time and again.

If you want information, you have to have some idea or what you are looking for, and you don't want to damage the individual that has the information, or you lose all of the information, plus future information.

I love the stories about taking VC out in a helicopter and throwing them out one by one until the last one talked, it was great propaganda, in reality, yes we threw them out of a Helicopter, at hover, again you didn't want to kill a potential source of information, it worked well.

It's patently ridiculous that you are somehow opposed to the entire ordeal, but are supportive of keeping parts of the operation sub rosa. I'm not. I don't care at all about that stuff, and the whole thing strikes me as pretty obviously ass-covering for someone, probably someone Obama is levering on. I'm just observing that you are barking up the wrong tree, if you are interested in information gained.

You can't find out anything much about that from the redacted parts of those reports. If you really want to know what happened, and what was found out, you need a special prosecutor and a genuine, formal, guns drawn investigation.


These are brainwashing and intimidation techniques, not information acquisition techniques. The info gained is hardly relevant.
”
Is that your expert legal opinion spoken as fact? It's the formal finding of several investigators and a simple physical fact - the techniques were based on SERE training and some "research", which was done and created in response to and mimicry of Korean and Chinese brainwashing techniques, which were used to extract false confessions from captured American military in the Korean War.

Besides, all torture by government policy ends up being used for terrorism and subjugation, not information. Look at any other government's torture program in history. Unless you think the US is some kind of unique, incorruptible political body. For information there are better ways, and the people who actually want info and know what they are doing employ them.

Do you really believe that KSM was waterboarded more than a hundred times in a couple of weeks for information? Would you accept anything he said after the 99th drowning as "information" that you had "learned"?

You can't find out anything much about that from the redacted parts of those reports.

You know this, how? I love how you keep making totally unsupported assertions as if they were somehow true just because you typed them out. Get a clue ice. You have no ability to support that statement, and until you prove otherwise, it's a safe assumption that you have no clue what you're talking about.


If you really want to know what happened, and what was found out, you need a special prosecutor and a genuine, formal, guns drawn investigation.

Well, perhaps. But this point is a distraction away from the major point I was making: whatever the USA has on the gains from torture should be made public. Obviously that's just my opinion, but it's not too much of a stretch to ask for total transparency when it's the oft mentioned claim of this administration.

What difference would it make? For starters it would let the American public know the whole story. If the Obama administration is so hell-bent on being transparent on these issues that it feels it necessary to make public the gritty details of what was done, then by all means, tell us what was obtained. It is totally relevant, and just because it isn't to you, doesn't mean that most people won't find it as such.


It's the formal finding of several investigators and a simple physical fact

Who?


the techniques were based on SERE training and some "research", which was done and created in response to and mimicry of Korean and Chinese brainwashing techniques, which were used to extract false confessions from captured American military in the Korean War.

Ahhh. So what? I served in the US navy, I know what SERE is about. Your little history lesson is nothing more than fluff and neither adds to or subtracts from the point of the matter.


Besides, all torture by government policy ends up being used for terrorism and subjugation, not information.

Sure. Maybe so. I'm not arguing that point, which point you've made like fifty times. I don't care about your speculation, which you've repeated as fact since point one and have supported with not one shred of source material. You can't say "all torture by government..." until we reach the end of history. IT may be that the "vast majority of torture by government ends up for the purpose of subjugation..." but since you don't know every instance of torture from throughout history, you'll pardon me if I dismiss more of your ramblings as more leftist bullshit.

But, it would be woefully interesting if the cases of torture revealed information that saved an American city or two. I never said that the torturers shouldn't be prosecuted. I've said over and over that the process should be transparent and a special prosecutor SHOULD be appointed and a grand jury should decide if each instance was acceptable. There are times when, indeed, the ends do justify the means.

You keep missing the point that I'm not supporting torture (nor outright damning it either). What I am supporting is total transparency. Given the right circumstances, I guess anything could be acceptable (i.e. a horrible disease breaks out in a major city, warranting a nuclear strike to eliminate it). Granted, most of these hyperboles are the stuff of Hollywood, but often times, as we've seen, art does imitate life. If, for example, the circumstances warranted it, then by all means, do what needs to be done, but be prepared to face the music afterwords. If it was so goddamned pressing, then the light of day should be no big deal afterwords.


Look at any other government's torture program in history. Unless you think the US is some kind of unique, incorruptible political body. For information there are better ways, and the people who actually want info and know what they are doing employ them.

I totally agree. I usually find myself on the other end of this debate (I think that the USA has horribly damaged its already tarnished name by using torture), so I have no desire to go on and on about this. But you've yet to substantially demonstrate any proof that information doesn't exist, cannot be obtained and isn't relevant, beyond your the assertions of your opinion. If these instances WERE brought before a grand jury, you can bet the outcome would be considered in the matter.


Do you really believe that KSM was waterboarded more than a hundred times in a couple of weeks for information? Would you accept anything he said after the 99th drowning as "information" that you had "learned"?

I do believe that KSM was waterboarded--shit the government has admitted as much. As to the second question: no. But I'd explore everything he said. Some of it might have turned up some interesting things. I have no idea what was obtained, but since our government is pretty damned good at keeping records, it is worthwhile to know what was obtained. I keep hearing that LA was saved and that waterboarding saved American lives, well if it's true, then let's hear who and what was saved.

Simple as that.

~String

Nancy Pelosi is going to lose big time. When you're briefed by the C.I.A you're not allowed to take notes. So there's no way to prove her side of story.

This whole thing about Pelosi is a distraction. The big issue is that the Bush administration seems to have approved techniques that:

1. ...amounted to torture.
2. ...were ordered in order to produce false information linking Iraq to Al Quida. In other words, for political not practical reasons.

Nancy Pelosi is going to lose big time. When you're briefed by the C.I.A you're not allowed to take notes. So there's no way to prove her side of story.

And you know this how?

This whole thing about Pelosi is a distraction. The big issue is that the Bush administration seems to have approved techniques that:

1. ...amounted to torture.
2. ...were ordered in order to produce false information linking Iraq to Al Quida. In other words, for political not practical reasons.

Well, if Pelosi finds torture so disturbing, why didn't she say something about it before it happened. Since her claim was that she was informed that it would be used (but had not been used yet), it would seem logical that she should have said and done something about it before KSM was tortured.

Wonder why we didn't hear anything from her?

~String

If she was told about torture, she couldn't say anything because it was classified.

If she was told about torture, she couldn't say anything because it was classified.

Incorrect. She could have brought her protest to the attention of the relevant House Oversight committee (which can vote to declassify any information to the rest of Congress if it felt necessary: only the Congress can determine which information is kept from the rest of that body, not the Executive branch) as well as petitioned the POTUS herself. Moreover, she could have followed a long standing tradition within the Congress whenever a member disagrees with the Executive branch: leak the information to the press. There is no indication that she did either.

She's a liar and a hypocrite, just like the former president who she claims to have opposed on this issue. Maybe if people like her, did the "right" thing early on, then people who are so adamantly opposed to waterboarding would not have to cry so passionately about it now.

What's the old saying about bad things happening because good people stand by and do nothing to stop it?

~String

You're like a serial killer who blames the cops for not stopping him.

You're like a serial killer who blames the cops for not stopping him.

Ah, I'm not blaming Pelosi. I blame Bush horrible and incompetent president. Just as importantly, you haven't refuted the facts I gave: Pelosi had options, which options you denied she had ("...she couldn't say anything because it was classified."), which is patently untrue. Either your logic is that she knew and she didn't do something, or she knew and couldn't do anything. Which is it?

But the point I'm making about Pelosi is that she is hardly innocent since she stood by and did nothing.

If YOU knew a person was being tortured, Spider, what would (or should) you do to prevent it?

~String

Note: if your analogy was: "Blame the cop for not doing anything, while she knew all along what the serial killer was doing..."

Then you'd be right.

~String

I'm saying I believe Pelosi that she was misled because she would have protested if she knew, and the Bush administration lied to us all the time anyway, they marginalized CIA agents who didn't tow the party line. It all fits with the pattern - character assassination instead of transparency.

I'm saying I believe Pelosi that she was misled because she would have protested if she knew, and the Bush administration lied to us all the time anyway, they marginalized CIA agents who didn't tow the party line. It all fits with the pattern.

Well, then you've been duped. Leon Panetta released documents indicating that Pelosi was told the truth. That is: Leon Panetta, the Bush-hating Democrat, released this information:


Panetta to CIA employees: We told Pelosi the truth (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employees_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth. html?showall)
"Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing “the enhanced techniques that had been employed.” Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."

Just as importantly, her statement has changed like ten times. Some of her statements have indicated that she did know, so you must be avoiding those ones. In your political myopia, you're either ignoring the truth or just avoiding it because it hurts too much.

~String

I frankly don't give a shit what Pelsoi knew. She didn't torture anyone, this is a distraction designed to focus the blame on the Democrats. Let the chips fall where they may. Pelosi's missteps, if there were any, are almost irrelevent.

Bob Graham confirms Pelosi's claim:


Former Senator Bob Graham, who received a classified briefing on terror detainees during the same month in the fall of 2002 as Nancy Pelosi, was not briefed about the use of either waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques during the meeting, he claimed in an interview with me.

Graham’s assertion (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/bob-graham-i-wasnt-told-about-waterboarding-or-eits-in-my-briefing/)— his first public comments since the release of the intelligence document detailing torture briefings given to members of Congress — directly contradicts the document’s claim that he had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Graham is now the second Dem official to deny on the record the document’s contents and raises questions about its claim that Pelosi had been told, which she has denied.

“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” Graham told me by phone moments ago, in a reference to the terror suspect who had been repeatedly waterboarded the month before.

Graham is the only other Dem aside from Pelosi to get briefed in 2002, so they are both in effect asserting that no Dem was briefed on the use of EITs that year. The date of the next briefing was in February 2003.


The absence of any description in the new documents (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/08/AR2009050803967.html)of her being briefed on waterboarding has become a critical distinction for Pelosi. She has said that briefers discussed waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques as legal options but that they never told her such methods were being used.

I frankly don't give a shit what Pelsoi knew. She didn't torture anyone, this is a distraction designed to focus the blame on the Democrats. Let the chips fall where they may. Pelosi's missteps, if there were any, are almost irrelevent.

Right. Way to change your tune when cornered.

First it was: "She didn't know."

Then it was: "She couldn't do anything."

Now its: "It doesn't matter."

Well played.

For the record, I've said this a number of times, the people who did the torturing should be held accountable and a grand jury should decide their fate.

But, supposedly we elect our officials in Congress to do a little more than pass laws. That's why we have "oversight committees", I'm sure you're aware of this. So, it would appear that we just should ignore her rubber stamp on torture because you don't like hearing Pelosi be held accountable.

Now where have I heard that tune before? Yeah, it was the Republicans same song about Bush. Look where that got them!

Shit. The rot is already setting in and the Dems have been in power in the Congress for less than three years. And we wonder why the two parties cycle between their times in the sun. They never learn from their own, much less the other's, mistakes.

~String

Whatever, I haven't been cornered yet. My point of view has always been the same. I believe Pelosi that she was misled by the CIA. I questioned wether (had she known) she could have made this information known since it was classified. Even if she could, there was little effect a Democrat could have had on the administration. But the overall picture is that this Pelsoi matter is a distraction from the real issue. If she gets in trouble for something she did, I don't care. Briefing a member of congress does not make it all OK. The fact remains, this crime was not committed by Democrats, it was committed by Republicans who did their best to invent a legal framework for actions that are not legal under US law.

I believe Pelosi that she was misled by the CIA.

Well, the information released by Panetta says otherwise. She has, in fact, stated otherwise. Her wide pallet of varied statements just don't match up.


The fact remains, this crime was not committed by Democrats, it was committed by Republicans who did their best to invent a legal framework for actions that are not legal under US law.

I have not disputed this fact at all.

It's not like the USA is a one trick pony. We're fully capable of investigating the CIA while exposing Pelosi as a lying hypocrite at the same time. One does not exclude the other from begin true.

I would add something to the above, but String seems to be exposing Spider quite well on his own. . .

For the record, I think Pelosi is lying.

So far as the "torture" goes, the matter is not as clear-cut as some current accounts make out. US code speaks of torture as acting to inflict "severe physical or mental pain or suffering ... upon another person within his custody or control." This is defined rather nebulously in the code, but the 2006 Military Commissions Act talks about what it called "grave breaches of Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions. In plain English, this prohibited the following:

1. "Torture" that inflicts severe physical or "prolonged mental harm" on someone.

2. Cruel or inhuman treatment. (McCain amendment added "degrading" here).

3. Biological experiment.

4. Mutilation, maiming and serious body injury.

Typically, the courts have followed the "shocks the conscience" standard to consider whether the conduct is proportionate to government's interests. I tend to view waterboarding as torture, but the issue is whether this meets the above criteria and whether the government interest allows this method as a proportionate response to danger it faced. This, I think, gets to String's query about what was gained from these interrogations. I, too, would like to know. If we're getting nothing, or worse than nothing -- empty confessions to nonexistent plots -- then the issue is dead and gone. But if huge plots were disrupted, that would give me pause. I, for one, see no reason why the FULL reports on these matters cannot be released. The plots are wrapped up, the leads several years old. There is no way it would compromise our security to look at this holistically, in my opinion.

Pelosi admitted that she was told such techniques were under consideration, not that they had been used. Panetta wasn't even head of the CIA at the time.

The USA prosecuted Japanese soldies for waterboarding, and kicked some soldiers out of our army for doing it in Vietnam. Waterboarding is torture.

My instinct tells me that Pelosi is lying in this case, though the CIA doesn't exactly have a spotless track record of being honest about what it does.

Actually, whenever the CIA has been called to account by Congressional leaders it has an excellent record of cooperation and clarity.

Pelosi is lying. And/or is extremely confused due to the severe pressure the silicon/botox implants in her face are causing to her head.

Lying is not a war crime but torture is, I wonder who should spend more time in jail, Pelosi or Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney?

Lying is not a war crime but torture is, I wonder who should spend more time in jail, Pelosi or Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney?

Nobody said it wasn't. Nobody said that Bush & Co. shouldn't be held accountable. What we ARE saying is that Pelosi knew and did nothing. Knowing that a bad this is happening and doing nothign about it is pretty bad, even if you weren't the one pulling the trigger. The person with the gun is still guilty, and including someone else in the faulty party doesn't absolve guilt from the trigger-puller.

~String

Lying is not a war crime but torture is, I wonder who should spend more time in jail, Pelosi or Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney?

You missing the point and casting chum in the water in a lame attempt to save your partisan favorite. Wake up.

Assume the worst case, assume Pelosi did lie about torture. So what, this is not anything new for politicians. They are always offering various distortions of the truth. It would be more notable if she did not lie.

But in any case even if she was informed, so what. She could not stop it. She could not openly talk about it, as it was classified. If she protested loudly or even quietly she risked the wrath of the George II administration and the ditto heads coming down her like a ton of bricks, perhaps with even a criminal prosecution.

She made a political judgement. But all of that does not and should not take the focus off the George II administration and its Republicans for initating and supporting torture. I never thought I would see the day when my government would lower itself to torture. I naively thought we were above that sort of behavior. I guess you can rack up another to the power of the ditto heads.

I'm sorry but you cannot just wish away what is at stake here.

That is, what you seem to fail to understand is that if Mrs. Pelosi knew about the torture and said nothing until it became politically popular to do so, then she is PART of the torture problem, if there is one. This is important.

Furthermore, if she knew and said nothing until it became politically popular to do so, then she clearly does NOT have a moral problem with what happened and all her outrage and her attacks on the Bush administration are nothing more than a political showpiece, played out to weaken a president and his party so that she might increase her influence and that of her party. That should bother you, too.

The issue here in this thread is Pelosi. Continually trying to shift focus to Bush is little more than a cheap rhetorical trick that overlooks the motivations and integrity of an extremely powerful and important politician.

Who said Pelosi did nothing about it? She helped bring the Democrats to power! That is all one could have done given the fascism of the Bush administration, who no doubt would have trashed her then as they are trashing her now. Increasing the power of the Democrats was, in this case, the moral choice. Think the Cons would have investigated this issue? No way.

Who said Pelosi did nothing about it? She helped bring the Democrats to power! That is all one could have done given the fascism of the Bush administration, who no doubt would have trashed her then as they are trashing her now. Increasing the power of the Democrats was, in this case, the moral choice.

Right. Nice syllogism. So, she does nothing DURING the time of the incident, but concentrates her powers on getting politicians elected and that equates "doing something about it."

~String

The whole implication of this thread's title - i.e., that either the CIA or Pelosi are telling the truth - is ridiculous on its face. Of course both of them are lying. The only real issues are which exact statements are important lies, and why they are being told.

Right. Nice syllogism. So, she does nothing DURING the time of the incident, but concentrates her powers on getting politicians elected and that equates "doing something about it."

~String

Only thing that could have been done.

The whole implication of this thread's title - i.e., that either the CIA or Pelosi are telling the truth - is ridiculous on its face. Of course both of them are lying. The only real issues are which exact statements are important lies, and why they are being told.

Well, as of yet we have no proof, beyond numerous unsupported claims, that the CIA lied to the Government. But we DO have substantiated proof that Pelosi lied. That's the issue.

If someone would like to furnish some proof that the CIA lied, then let's see it.

~String

The bottom line here is that the Republicans are in dire straights. Obama is very popular and the pollsters are telling Republicans it would not be wise to attack Obama. So who do they attack, Pelosi. She has never had the popularity Obama has enjoyed so that makes her an eay target.

This reminds me of the Republican defense of the Republican administration and congress for the last decade, "yeah but you guys did it too". My parents had an old saying, two wrongs dont make a right...same here. And Pelosi's fault if indeed she can be faulted, pales in comparison to what the George II and his Republicans have done.

Only thing that could have been done.

Well, beyond getting her and her liberal cohorts together and writing the president, leaking the information to the press, and petitioning the various oversight committees on the matter, I guess you're right, absolutely NOTHING on Earth could have been done. Nothing at all.

There's nothing a capable and powerful woman, who has been speaker of the House for--what?--two years and de facto leader of the Democrats in the house for about 6 years, COULD have done to prevent this tragedy.

Poor thing.

~String

All the committees were chaired by Republicans, weren't they? Leaking classified information to the press would have led to her being branded a traitor. This is how the Republicans work. The only thing that could stop it was electing Obama.

The bottom line here is that the Republicans are in dire straights. Obama is very popular and the pollsters are telling Republicans it would not be wise to attack Obama. So who do they attack, Pelosi. She has never had the popularity Obama has enjoyed so that makes her an eay target.

First, Obama is not "very popular".

He is very popular with some voters, less popular with others. I haven't seen his numbers lately, but the last thing I saw had him about where all new presidents sit at this stage of the game. So, please. Calm your Obasms down.

Nobody is going after Pelosi here, either. She brought this on herself by leading the charge on this issue and continually calling people over at Langley liars. It was only a matter of time before they, and their boss (a former democrat), had enough and exposed her.


All the committees were chaired by Republicans, weren't they? Leaking classified information to the press would have led to her being branded a traitor. This is how the Republicans work. The only thing that could stop it was electing Obama.

This is not a Republican/Democrat issue, no matter how much you try to make it one. This is a lying/truth issue, and it gets at the heart of Pelosi's credibility. Seriously, your blinders on this are obscene. Politicians who aren't ranking members on a committee are powerless to leak classified information or protest against things they don't like? What world do you live in?

Oh, wait.

You live in the world where you think "electing Omaba" stopped some sinister Bush plot.

Got it.

Well, as of yet we have no proof, beyond numerous unsupported claims, that the CIA lied to the Government. But we DO have substantiated proof that Pelosi lied. That's the issue.

If someone would like to furnish some proof that the CIA lied, then let's see it.

The CIA is a covert agency in the business of secrets and deception. That you insist on giving them the same benefit of the doubt as a Congressman strikes me as somewhat obtuse.

That's not an endorsement of any conspiracy theory, but the reasonable presumption when it comes to such entities is extreme skepticism.

All the committees were chaired by Republicans, weren't they? Leaking classified information to the press would have led to her being branded a traitor. This is how the Republicans work. The only thing that could stop it was electing Obama.

Is that what she was thinking? Do you have some direct line to her office?

As to the Republican committees being headed by Republicans, well, yeah, that's how they work. But by tradition the committees only have one or two more Republicans than Democrats on them. All of the relevent committees have Democrats on them. You can bet, if she went to the party leadership about this, they could have made a big stink about it. But she didn't.

And since when is she incapable of petitioning the president? She's been in power for two years. One would think that if this were such a big deal, upon getting her position as speaker, she'd immediately begin making a stink about this issue. But she didn't. In fact, she didn't say a word until it became politically expedient.

~String

well considering the CIA has already been proven to have lied(sorry but some who is anal enough to record what they do in each room they visit isn't going to forget to record being briefed by the CIA about torture) about who they briefed how many times I'd have to say the CIA.

Petition Bush about it? LOL!

She said her job was to get the Democrats elected, that's why I mentioned it. Not just to stop torture, but all the other things they were doing. Again, if she's a liar, that's bad and you shouldn't vote for her again. Nevertheless, it's a minor issue, like complaining to the firemen that during the course of putting out your house fire, they trampled on your flowers. If not protesting about torture is bad, how much worse are the people that ordered it? Going after those responsible doesn't seem to be the Republican focus, only Pelsoi, and that's not political? These guys are running scared.

The CIA is a covert agency in the business of secrets and deception. That you insist on giving them the same benefit of the doubt as a Congressman strikes me as somewhat obtuse.

That's not an endorsement of any conspiracy theory, but the reasonable presumption when it comes to such entities is extreme skepticism.

I never said that they don't lie Quad, just that there is no proof that they lied to the Congress (In fact my statement was this: "Well, as of yet we have no proof, beyond numerous unsupported claims, that the CIA lied to the Government (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258030&postcount=60).") I'm quite aware that the job of the Agency is to spread as much misinformation as possible (i.e. lying), but Pelosi's claim that she was lied to has not been substantiated by any evidence, and in fact was refuted by long time Democrat and CIA director Panetta's recent release.

~String

Petition Bush about it? LOL!

Right. So, let me get this: Pelosi was elected by her people to represent them and to oversee the actions of the government in order to protect the nation from this "abuse" and didn't do a damn thing because it was too hard, or because Bush was too much of a douchebag, which makes it okay. Nice try.

Stopping bad presidents from doing bad things is precisely the job of the Congress and its individual members. Just because you think it's too much to ask of one person, doesn't absolve them of their duty to their beliefs and constituents to do so.

As Coune mentioned: She only made an issue of this when it became politically convenient. She said and did nothing when she was notified of this issue. Thank god for blinded supporters like you! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, the Republicans have had herds of them for the past eight years. Remember, she's the one who accused the CIA of lying and was proven wrong. It's not like people sat around digging through her trash. She brought it right out to them.


PNevertheless, it's a minor issue, like complaining to the firemen that during the course of putting out your house fire, they trampled on your flowers.

Well, if in this case the "flowers" were human beings who were brutally "tortured" all while the "firewoman" stood by with full knowledge and did absolutely nothing until it became politically convenient to do so; then yeah, I guess your comparison is an apt one. I mean, NOBODY would be furious with the fire fighter too; it's impossible to be angry with two selfish leaders at the same time.

~String

I never said that they don't lie Quad, just that there is no proof that they lied to the Congress I'm quite aware that the job of the Agency is to spread as much misinformation as possible (i.e. lying),

And so why, then, would anyone expect to see any such proof, at least any time soon?

I'm all for evidence-based reasoning, but the reality is that it's necessarily problematic when dealing with covert agencies. Particularly when it comes to current events. One necessarily must operate in terms of presumption (based of course on the longer-term record) in such cases. At the end of the day, there is no reason to take anything the CIA says at face value.



but Pelosi's claim that she was lied to has not been substantiated by any evidence, and in fact was refuted by long time Democrat and CIA director Panetta's recent release.

You can surely see why it's problematic to cite the CIA director's say-so as evidence that the CIA is telling the truth.

I'm all for evidence-based reasoning, but the reality is that it's necessarily problematic when dealing with covert agencies. Particularly when it comes to current events. One necessarily must operate in terms of presumption (based of course on the longer-term record) in such cases. At the end of the day, there is no reason to take anything the CIA says at face value.

That's a lot of assumptions. I'm no CIA expert, but I haven't seen much in the way of substantiated claims by anybody that the Agency has lied to the Congress in the past ten-or-so years.

It's not that I think they don't lie, it's just that I'm unwilling to make assumptions that they are deceiving Congress just because we think that they will.

Is there any recent history to support this?


You can surely see why it's problematic to cite the CIA director's say-so as evidence that the CIA is telling the truth.

No. The guy just got the job and spent a considerable part of the past decade decrying the Bush administration. He's a total outsider with ZERO intelligence indoctrination. It's not like they've had time to stick him in the Brain Transference Chamber yet.

Anything he says can be verified at the will of Congress. He'd sign his political death-warrant by telling such a blatant lie himself. More importantly, Pelosi has delivered ZERO proof that she was lied to, and has, in fact, contradicted herself on like ten occasions.

~String

If he's an outsider, how the hell does he know for sure what the CIA said to congress?

If he's an outsider, how the hell does he know for sure what the CIA said to congress?

He's the director, with full access to the written reports that are given to each member of Congress. That's how.

So, then you're calling him a liar in that he knowingly made up this information? Wow. The tall tales get taller and taller.

~String

That's a lot of assumptions. I'm no CIA expert, but I haven't seen much in the way of substantiated claims by anybody that the Agency has lied to the Congress in the past ten-or-so years.

And, again, there's no reason to expect that you would. That's how covert intelligence agencies are supposed to operate. It's not good for them, to be caught lying to Congress. Fortunately, they are experts at keeping secrets and telling lies. And so, typically, we don't catch them at this stuff until decades after the fact.

If you want to have this conversation in, say, 20 years' time, then it will become more reasonable to demand hard evidence. But the fact that the CIA hasn't been caught lying recently is unimpressive.



It's not that I think they don't lie, it's just that I'm unwilling to make assumptions that they are deceiving Congress just because we think that they will.

The proper standard, here, is to be unwilling to make assumptions that the CIA is NOT being deceptive. That is the extraordinary claim that requires supporting evidence.

All publicly-available information from covert intelligence agencies must be presumed to be disinformation. And so the default position, in the absence of contrary evidence, must be that the CIA is engaged in deception.



No. The guy just got the job and spent a considerable part of the past decade decrying the Bush administration. He's a total outsider with ZERO intelligence indoctrination. It's not like they've had time to stick him in the Brain Transference Chamber yet.

It's not an issue of indoctrination, or personality. The guy is responsible for a spy agency, whose operations are highly politicized. Secrets and deception - in the service of politics - are part of the mandated job requirements, not some side-effect of CIA culture or something.



Anything he says can be verified at the will of Congress.

Verified to whom, exactly? Not us.



He'd sign his political death-warrant by telling such a blatant lie himself.

And, in many cases, also by telling the truth.

Intelligence officials are disposable like that, when it comes to politics.



More importantly, Pelosi has delivered ZERO proof that she was lied to, and has, in fact, contradicted herself on like ten occasions.

Again with the excluded middle. That Pelosi is obvious a craven politician trying to cover her own ass, doesn't imply that the CIA is being forthright, and the expectation that she can objectively prove that a covert intelligence agency is lying is absurd.

CIA Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-admits-that-info-about-torture-briefings-for-dems-may-not-be-accurate/)

Again, I'm no expert on the history of the CIA, but as Speaker of the House, she receives almost the same briefings as the president. She has immense pull on the oversight committees who can audit and demand anything they want. Neither the president no the CIA can prevent or deny them access.

Heads easily roll, and have rolled, over lying to Congress. How many people lost their jobs for this very issue after Watergate? Yeah, some people lied, but the lies came right out, and as my friend Counte informs me, the Agency cooperated fully during the Church Committee and provided full access to the "Family Jewels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Jewels_(Central_Intelligence_Agency))" when such access was demanded.

And it does require extraordinary proof that Panetta was lying. I'm not the one making the claim. The speaker of the House of Representatives is. She's required to back-up that claim and has failed to do so. Panetta lying to her now is political suicide, since a word from her would set in motion an investigation by the Congress that would end his political involvement and possibly land him in prison.

~String

CIA Admits That Info About Torture Briefings For Dems May Not Be Accurate (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-admits-that-info-about-torture-briefings-for-dems-may-not-be-accurate/)

Ahhh. That's a bit of an exaggeration. Panetta said that he can't substantiate what was said, and that it would be the Congress who would have to verify the veracity of the documents, but nowhere in the paragraph did it say, "Hey, this stuff may be a lie."

~String

I love what people believe about CIA. It amuses me. Especially, since most bookstores now have espionage sections, in which a person can pick up any number of objective books that describe the agency's history in minute details. They are there, if you want them. But why read them?

You guys can just blather about it, based largely on a diet of bad Hollywood movies and wrongheaded assumptions, and post cute little phrases about covert this and lying that. Never does any of it have to be backed up, of course, because this is the CIA and it's about what we DON'T know and CAN'T prove, right?

To return to the point, the "expectation that she can objectively prove that a covert intelligence agency is lying" is NOT absurd. What separates the CIA from other intelligence organizations, even the British ones, is that it has Congressional oversight and periodically must open the books on operations. Furthermore, CIA has something called an Office of the Inspector General, which is specifically an internal auditing organization, separate from the agency's other directorates (which I doubt most of the people on this website could even name).

If you want the brief rundown about how wrong it is to talk about Langley as housing "truthless people," as I just say Keith Olbermann quip, then consider that for the first 30 or so years of its existence, Congress did not WANT to know what the CIA was doing, precisely because it wanted to be able to deny whatever flap occurred. But even in that oversight-less era, the president and the NSC knew full well what the agency was up to. (If you want example, recall how Eisenhower lied about the U2 flight and was then forced to retract his lie when it turned out the USSR had Gary Powers).

All that changed with the Church and Pike committees (wiki them) and the advent of Congressional oversight. Since then, the agency, whatever it has done, tends to fess up when it's called on the carpet to Congress. The one notable exception is former director Richard Helms (read Powers' book about him), who was convicted of a minor perjury count before the Senate. There are numerous examples to the contrary. That is, numerous examples where fessing up happened: Iran/Contra, assistance to the Contras, mining harbors, the infamous "assassination" manual, etc.

So please, enough with this the CIA just lies to Congress. That's ridiculous.

To those of you defending the CIA here please tell me why? THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE LIED ON THE SUBJECT OF TORTURE AND WHO THEY BRIEFED.

That's idiotic, P.J.

This entire thread is about who lied on this subject, hence the reason we're trying to discuss it like adults. The only thing that has been "proved" is that Mrs. Pelosi is not being honest with people on this issue.

That's idiotic, P.J.

This entire thread is about who lied on this subject, hence the reason we're trying to discuss it like adults. The only thing that has been "proved" is that Mrs. Pelosi is not being honest with people on this issue.

So the newspaper in florida that had an article about how when the CIA claimed to brief the dems on the torture programs 4 times and the one dem's WHO KEEPS A RECORD OF WHAT HE DOES EVERY SINGLE DAY, JOURNAL OF WHAT HE DID SHOWED THE CIA WAS LYING BECAUSE IT SHOWED ONLY ONE BRIEFING NOT FOUR.

So the newspaper in florida that had an article about how when the CIA claimed to brief the dems on the torture programs 4 times and the one dem's WHO KEEPS A RECORD OF WHAT HE DOES EVERY SINGLE DAY, JOURNAL OF WHAT HE DID SHOWED THE CIA WAS LYING BECAUSE IT SHOWED ONLY ONE BRIEFING NOT FOUR.

What newspaper?

And why the caps? What does that prove?

~String

What newspaper? can't remember I have been looking for it.


And why the caps? What does that prove?

~String

All caps is symbolically yelling

can't remember I have been looking for it.

Well, when you find it, I'd be interested in seeing it.


All caps is symbolically yelling

Well, yeah. I got that. I just don't understand why you were yelling. It's not like the fate of the world depends on this discussion.

~String

You know this, how? I love how you keep making totally unsupported assertions as if they were somehow true just because you typed them out You have no way of evaluating or verifying anything redacted in those reports, or providing them with meaningful context, much of which is known to have been destroyed. Also, the sky is often blue. I do go way out on limb, sometimes, I admit.


What difference would it make? For starters it would let the American public know the whole story. The existence of that idiotic delusion fostered by ass-covering propaganda is the one good reason I know of not to release any more info - if we have a bunch of people who think they are going to learn "the whole story" from the redacted parts of those transcripts, then maybe Obama has some excuse for withholding them.

But this point is a distraction away from the major point I was making: whatever the USA has on the gains from torture should be made public. Hence the need for a special prosecutor, a long and detailed investigation of US foreign policy since Vietnam at least, etc. You don't seriously expect to be able to evaluate those gains from the redacted parts of the documents at issue, of course - do you?


But, it would be woefully interesting if the cases of torture revealed information that saved an American city or two No, it wouldn't. And it isn't possible to obtain such information from those documents - again, all the context (waht was known, etc) is missing, the question of what would have been gained by other methods is unanswerable, the accuracy and integrity of the reports themselves is compromised, ans so forth.


You keep missing the point that I'm not supporting torture (nor outright damning it either). I certainly didn't miss that point. Your stance of not damning an official US government policy of torture is quite obvious and very clear.


But the point I'm making about Pelosi is that she is hardly innocent since she stood by and did nothing.
- - -

That is, what you seem to fail to understand is that if Mrs. Pelosi knew about the torture and said nothing until it became politically popular to do so, then she is PART of the torture problem, if there is one. This is important. We haven't even deposed Cheney under oath. We are months away from investigating Congress, and the Republicans would be first in line before Feinstein et al. We are years away from the Pelosi level of complicity and guilt. Why the fuss?

If the Obama administration is so hell-bent on being transparent on these issues And the real agenda rears its familiar, ugly head.

. I tend to view waterboarding as torture, but the issue is whether this meets the above criteria and whether the government interest allows this method as a proportionate response to danger it faced. This, I think, gets to String's query about what was gained from these interrogations. I, too, would like to know. If we're getting nothing, or worse than nothing -- empty confessions to nonexistent plots -- then the issue is dead and gone. But if huge plots were disrupted, that would give me pause. This kind of corrupt quibbling over definitions, and appeal to information gained, is a waste of time - unless the real agenda is propaganda: political ass-covering for W&Co, damage to the Obama administration, etc.

It is impossible to evaluate the information gain from a torture program. The opportunity costs alone are unknown, almost in principle unknowable. And that's with complete information and honest report - this goofy scene is hopeless.

Actually, whenever the CIA has been called to account by Congressional leaders it has an excellent record of cooperation and clarity. That hasn't happened for many years.

That's a lot of assumptions. I'm no CIA expert, but I haven't seen much in the way of substantiated claims by anybody that the Agency has lied to the Congress in the past ten-or-so years. How soon we forget: let's start with the Iraq War runup. We have - for one obvious example - the thoroughly documented case of Joe Wilson's findings in Niger, which the CIA "misled" Congress about, at a minimum.

Do we have any verified case of the CIA telling the truth about a difficult matter (say in defiance of the White House), to "Congress", at any time in the past ten years?

Anything he says can be verified at the will of Congress. He'd sign his political death-warrant by telling such a blatant lie himself. You cannot be serious. He's a political appointee of the Executive Branch, if desired loyal to the President - if, like Tenet, he's been appointed to lie to Congress, why wouldn't he?

Heads easily roll, and have rolled, over lying to Congress. How many people lost their jobs for this very issue after Watergate? Yeah, some people lied, but the lies came right out, and as my friend Counte informs me, the Agency cooperated fully during the Church Committee and provided full access to the "Family Jewels" when such access was demanded Very few people lost their jobs over that one, and it was thirty five years ago. Before Reagan's little modifications and Iran Contra arrangements. The fact that you have to go back that far, and for such meagre support, ought to settle the question.

But if you are recommending a Church Commission style inquiry setup here, hop on the bandwagon. It will get around to Pelosi in a few years, probably, if she's actually a big concern of yours.

What separates the CIA from other intelligence organizations, even the British ones, is that it has Congressional oversight and periodically must open the books on operations The CIA has never opened its books on even its budget, as far as anyone in the public can verify. Periodically, some fringe whacko in Congress points to the Constitutional requirement that all government agencies submit their budget to Congressional oversight, and the CIA blows him off.

All that changed with the Church and Pike committees (wiki them) and the advent of Congressional oversight. Since then, the agency, whatever it has done, tends to fess up when it's called on the carpet to Congress. - - - That is, numerous examples where fessing up happened: Iran/Contra, assistance to the Contras, mining harbors, the infamous "assassination" manual, etc. If you really believe that, then it's time to call them on the carpet, no?

Well, when you find it, I'd be interested in seeing it

He's referring to retired Sen. Bob Graham, an issue already included in this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2257004&postcount=42).

The latest count (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Obey_demands_CIA_correction_.html) has no less than four prominent Democrats—three of whom may be staking their careers on the argument—lining up to refute the CIA narrative: Sen. Bob Graham (ret.), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House), Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (former Senate Intelligence Committee chair), and Rep. David Obey (House Appropriations Committee chair).

From Monday's Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC:


MADDOW: Greg, in terms of the facts here and the allegations on both sides, when Michael Steele goes on the Sunday shows and says that the evidence contradicts what Pelosi has said about how she was briefed—is that actually true?

SARGENT: Well, I guess we should consider the fact that three Democrats—senior Democrats are all on records saying, contesting the CIA‘s version of what they told these Democrats: Bob Graham, Jay Rockefeller and, of course, Pelosi. The CIA itself, as you pointed out, has said very clearly, numerous times that they are not willing to vouch for the—to take overall responsibility for the accuracy of their depiction of what happened.

And by the way, there‘s a development that hasn‘t really been focused on, but it‘s very important. On FOX over the weekend, Pete Hoekstra, who‘s been pursuing the notes and memos that supposedly will prove that Pelosi was briefed on torture, he said clearly on FOX that he had looked at those and that they wouldn‘t provide a clear picture of what actually happened, and said that there are still other CIA documents out there that have to be obtained in order to establish this ....

..... MADDOW: That means that as they continue to press this—press this allegation against Pelosi, because I think you‘re right that they do see some short-term political gain in hitting her—they see her as a very soft target—as they continue to pressure this—

SARGENT: Right.

MADDOW: —pressure her on this, it makes it more likely that there will be more disclosures and those disclosures, it seems, are likely to help her. I mean, she certainly seems very confident that when those documents come out, they will help her side of the story, doesn‘t she?

SARGENT: Well, I mean, you know, one of the facts that just seems to have disappeared from this debate is that Pelosi has said over and over that she wants the documents released. Now, you know—so she supports the release of documents that will prove that she was complicit in torture, not clear ....

(MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826577/))

One of the ironic effects of this dispute may be that we move closer to a full investigation of the torture policy, including who authorized what, who knew what, and when everything happened.

Is that worth three Democrats (Pelosi, Rockerfeller, Obey) staking their careers? I would hope so.

This is the American political system, in all its perversity, on full display. There's going to be a whole lot of horseshit, but the odds are improving that we might finally find the pony in there somewhere.
____________________

Notes:

Thrush, Glenn. "Obey demands CIA correction". May 19, 2009. Politico.com. Accessed May 19, 2009. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Obey_demands_CIA_correction_.html

"'The Rachel Maddow Show' for May 18". MSNBC. May 19, 2009. MSNBC.com. Accessed May 19, 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826577/

Wow. Now we're quoting Maddow as a worthwhile source (sigh).


This kind of corrupt quibbling over definitions, and appeal to information gained, is a waste of time - unless the real agenda is propaganda: political ass-covering for W&Co, damage to the Obama administration, etc.

Bullshit.

The definition of definitions is the entire fucking case! That is, torture has to be defined to everyone's satisfaction -- and this definition is something reasonable people CAN disagree about.


It is impossible to evaluate the information gain from a torture program. The opportunity costs alone are unknown, almost in principle unknowable. And that's with complete information and honest report - this goofy scene is hopeless.

No, it's not. It's rather simple. If huge, diabolical plots were disrupted because we made certain detainees cough up info under duress, then that's something that would give a reasonable, non-partisan pause. If, on the other hand, it's shown we got bunk or got information that wasn't timely and would have come out under normal forms of interrogation (as we used with Saddam Hussein), then that's a powerful argument, too.

The fact you continue to deny this puzzles me. It's rather fucking obvious, but you insist on living in this theoretical world where reality and results just don't matter. Fortunately, I think they do. And I think most Americans would agree with me.


That hasn't happened for many years.

OK, Ice. Then please, enlighten us all by PROVING it.

Because frankly, given our past conversations, what you DON'T know about CIA could fill several books, many of which I've told you to read several times now, and clearly you haven't. Your view of the agency approaches that of a Pravda staff writer, and little of what you have said about it in the past bears any resemblance to reality.


How soon we forget: let's start with the Iraq War runup. We have - for one obvious example - the thoroughly documented case of Joe Wilson's findings in Niger, which the CIA "misled" Congress about, at a minimum.

I knew it!

I told String earlier today it was just a matter of time before someone chimed in about the Iraq nonsense.

Why don't you read Paul Pillar's article about this in foreign affairs or the report produced by the Congress?

As for Niger, you are aware that Tenet hedged on this.

If you read his book (see page 325), you learn that "the dissenting views were clearly and extensively laid out in the report." You also learn that the origin of the Niger report came from the DIA, not the CIA, and that it was enshrined in the National Intelligence Estimate in 2002, because everyone -- other than State -- agreed it was a likely possibility, because "the only thing Niger had worth trading was yellow cake."

I won't get into the Wilson episode too deeply, but Tenet says:

"Wilson didn't even write up a report; he gave an oral briefing to two CIA analysts at his home one evening over Chinese takeout food. ... This unremarkable report was disseminated, but because it produced no solid answers (it was based on testimony of two Niger officials, nothing more), there wasn't an urgency to brief the results to senior officials."


Do we have any verified case of the CIA telling the truth about a difficult matter (say in defiance of the White House), to "Congress", at any time in the past ten years?

I'm not sure it was called on the carpet about anything in the past 10 years, but I listed all the events of the 1980s, which is the last time the agency operated "gloves off," and it came clean on all of them. Since then, one could argue, it's been roped in much more. There is no Casey, for example, and no Reagan to push him to push the boundaries. Until 9/11, there also was no big target like the Soviets.


You cannot be serious. He's a political appointee of the Executive Branch, if desired loyal to the President - if, like Tenet, he's been appointed to lie to Congress, why wouldn't he?

Tenet was appointed by Clinton to "lie" to Congress?

Please, tell us how you come by this information?

And can you detail what Tenet lied about during his tenure?

I'd be very interested, especially since Tenet, a former Congressional staffer, has an excellent reputation on the Hill for his honesty and cooperation with Congressmen and their committees.


Very few people lost their jobs over that one, and it was thirty five years ago. Before Reagan's little modifications and Iran Contra arrangements. The fact that you have to go back that far, and for such meagre support, ought to settle the question.

Plenty of people lost their jobs -- top officials among them -- and the fact I went back that far settles none of your points. Indeed, it bolsters mine. I had to go back that far, because the agency hasn't been called to the carpet much, if at all, since then, and it certainly hasn't suffered that kind of scrutiny and been proven to have broken the law.


But if you are recommending a Church Commission style inquiry setup here, hop on the bandwagon. It will get around to Pelosi in a few years, probably, if she's actually a big concern of yours.

She is a big concern of mine.

She's kind of a big deal. I mean, she's speaker of the house and third in line to the presidency. Plus, she's been one of the ringleaders of the "moral outrage" surrounding this entire debate about the water-boarding, so if it turns out she is full of shit, as I believe she is, then that's pretty fucking significant. That's not to say I would be surprised. I tend to view her as I view all Speakers or long-term Congressman, but for her to get all sanctimonious and engineer her own downfall is pretty rich -- and pretty good for the American political system, I might add. Honesty is always a better path than political bullshit. . .


The CIA has never opened its books on even its budget, as far as anyone in the public can verify.

You're just wrong.

The CIA budget is scrutinized and approved every single year by the Congressional oversight committees. And while "the public" cannot verify this, the public's representatives can and do, so quit with this deep and dirty secret crap. It's pathetic. There will never be a line item budget for the CIA available to public scrutiny, nor should there be. The fact there isn't one means absolutely fucking nothing. It certainly doesn't give you leeway to make some specious claim just because it's secret. Anyone with half a brain understands why that is . . .


Periodically, some fringe whacko in Congress points to the Constitutional requirement that all government agencies submit their budget to Congressional oversight, and the CIA blows him off.

Bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about. Or worse, you're just fucking lying. I don't know which, don't fucking care. Show me when this has happened. Once.


If you really believe that, then it's time to call them on the carpet, no?

I detailed three or four instances where they have been called on the carpet. I could add several more. So I fail to see your point. But then, I'm not sure you have one. As usual, you've done little more in this post than inform me of how little you know about the intelligence community and how it operates. Try putting down your socialist literature and reading some objective material. Until you do, you're just wasting everyone's time posting ignorant malarkey.

Wow. Now we're quoting Maddow as a worthwhile source (sigh).

Wow. Now we're ducking the substantive issues. (Sigh.)


(1) We're up to four prominent Democrats, three of whom still have political careers to stake, who dispute the CIA's records.
(2) The Director of the CIA is unwilling to vouch for the veracity of his Agency's records.
(3) Republicans including Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI) and Rep. John Boehner (OH) have called for the release of more CIA documents, because what we have doesn't hang Pelosi.

And Maddow's guest, by the way—you know, the one whose words form the greater portion of the quote—writes for one of the websites that has actually posted the infamous CIA briefing chart. Sometimes, Counte, you need to look past your prejudice and accept that certain issues are on the table.

So maybe you don't like Maddow, but you're welcome to demonstrate that any of the above points, which were raised in the interview, are untrue. Or is it just easier to bitch about the scary liberal dyke?

Dude.
Why would you trust an organisation whose very job is to misinform?

You have no way of evaluating or verifying anything redacted in those reports, or providing them with meaningful context, much of which is known to have been destroyed.

I'm still waiting for something concrete in how you can know all of this, beyond (yet again) your well worded assumptions.


Hence the need for a special prosecutor, a long and detailed investigation of US foreign policy since Vietnam at least, etc.

Well since I've already stated as much, and that a grand jury should have the privilege of deciding, you'll get no objection from me.


You don't seriously expect to be able to evaluate those gains from the redacted parts of the documents at issue, of course - do you?

Yes. I do. Or at least someone who has the time to spend digging through the documents.


No, it wouldn't. And it isn't possible to obtain such information from those documents - again, all the context (waht was known, etc) is missing, the question of what would have been gained by other methods is unanswerable, the accuracy and integrity of the reports themselves is compromised, ans so forth.

That's still an Ice assertion being phrased as fact.


We are years away from the Pelosi level of complicity and guilt. Why the fuss?

Since this is a thread, at least in part, about Pelosi, it seems fair to discuss her.

This whole "avoid talking about Pelosi... QUICK LOOK OVER THERE AND SEE WHAT BUSH DID!!!" distraction is really very Republican-esque. At no point have I (or anybody that I know, I may be wrong) said that the entire matter of torture by the Bush administration should NOT be investigated. Just that, it would appear that Pelosi knew, did nothing about it before and is ONLY bitching about it now due to political expediency. We are capable of calling multiple politicians to account for various reason on various matters.

~String

Nobody said it wasn't. Nobody said that Bush & Co. shouldn't be held accountable. What we ARE saying is that Pelosi knew and did nothing. Knowing that a bad this is happening and doing nothign about it is pretty bad, even if you weren't the one pulling the trigger. The person with the gun is still guilty, and including someone else in the faulty party doesn't absolve guilt from the trigger-puller.

~String

Not only did she not DO anything about it, she then grandstanded and postured like a pee cock, chastising the Bush admin for doing it and then "lying about it to the American people", and all kinds of other gobbledygook. If she indeed knew about waterboarding (as it is now becoming clear that she very much did know) then not only is she an aider and abetter to so-called torture, but she is also a big ol' hypocrite and a shameless partisan hack. I mean, the right already knew that much, but now her bona fides are being exposed to her side of the isle too.

And so, the leftist hero from San Fran, the bastion of liberal thought in America, is part of the "torturing establishment". She should be dumped for so many reasons, and if the left is so strongly opposed to having those 3 turds waterboarded, then they should help in the process of getting her dumped, because she knew, and didn't do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/v/eq2uIwVx0vc&hl=en&fs=1

Wow. Now we're ducking the substantive issues. (Sigh.)

I'm ducking nothing. To date, I'd wager I posted more substance from direct sources than anyone in this thread. That's a far cry from what we get from you, which is what I was reacting to.



(1) We're up to four prominent Democrats, three of whom still have political careers to stake, who dispute the CIA's records.
(2) The Director of the CIA is unwilling to vouch for the veracity of his Agency's records.
(3) Republicans including Rep. Pete Hoekstra (MI) and Rep. John Boehner (OH) have called for the release of more CIA documents, because what we have doesn't hang Pelosi.

And Maddow's guest, by the way—you know, the one whose words form the greater portion of the quote—writes for one of the websites that has actually posted the infamous CIA briefing chart. Sometimes, Counte, you need to look past your prejudice and accept that certain issues are on the table.

So maybe you don't like Maddow, but you're welcome to demonstrate that any of the above points, which were raised in the interview, are untrue. Or is it just easier to bitch about the scary liberal dyke?

It's not my job to waste my time undermining points that have not been proven. It's your job to prove the points first. Or at least attempt to.

And my reaction has nothing to do with your "scary liberal dyke" and everything to do with your sloppy methodology. That is, you think that posting a transcript of two people blathering on television proves something, when in fact, it does not. I saw, for example, a panel on CNN debating CIA and one of them started mouthing off about how blacks distrusted the agency because it spied on Martin Luther King (not true, see the Church Committee Report). Can I post a transcript of that as "proof" that CIA spied on King? Maybe in your world. . .

Seriously, what in your post was substantive? You talk about four "senior Democrats are all on records saying, contesting the CIA‘s version of what they told." Well, no shit. They would, wouldn't they? Because, like Pelosi, they are up the same shit creek with no paddle. And like Pelosi, they know they can crow about being lied to or misled and a great many people will buy that, either for partisan reasons or because they think the CIA just goes around lying to Congressmen all the time, an assertion no one has been able to prove, as of yet, in this thread.

Your "latest count" leads to a blog about whether a staffer was in the room. Whether he was or wasn't is hardly the issue -- and it certainly has little to do with what we're discussing here. By repeating this chum, which is little more than majoring in the minor, you're repeating the attempts by the Democrats to portray Pelosi as some sort of dupe who went to these briefings and has no responsibility for or knowledge of what was said therein. That's doesn't pass the stupid test, if you ask me.

...She should be dumped for so many reasons, and if the left is so strongly opposed to having those 3 turds waterboarded, then they should help in the process of getting her dumped, because she knew, and didn't do anything about it.

Yeah, I guess we will think about it once the people that ACTUALLY ORDERED IT are brought to justice.

So the newspaper in florida that had an article about how when the CIA claimed to brief the dems on the torture programs 4 times and the one dem's WHO KEEPS A RECORD OF WHAT HE DOES EVERY SINGLE DAY, JOURNAL OF WHAT HE DID SHOWED THE CIA WAS LYING BECAUSE IT SHOWED ONLY ONE BRIEFING NOT FOUR.

There were over 40 briefings;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182533815302417.html


MAY 11, 2009

What Congress Knew
Congress got 40 briefings from the CIA on
interrogations.


Ms. Pelosi's denials are also difficult to square with a chronology of 40
CIA briefings to Congressional Members compiled by the CIA and
released this week by Director Leon Panetta. For the September 4,
2002 meeting, the CIA's summary of the discussion reads:

"Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background
on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."

We emphasize the verb tense to underscore the contradiction with Ms. Pelosi's categorical
denials of last month.



Amusingly, or almost, Senator Rockefeller's denial is flatly contradicted by his own report on the subject released last month, which notes that

"On May 19, 2008, the Department of Justice and the Central Intelligence Agency provided the Committee with access to all opinions and a number of other documents prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel . . . concerning the legality of the CIA's detention and interrogation program. Five of these documents provided addressed the use of waterboarding."

Yes, Democrats knew, Rockefeller Knew, Pelosi Knew, former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senators Pat Roberts conferms that She knew, as the head of the;



Pelosi was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee

She should have known, She was the seinor Democrat on the Dammed Committee, she was the ranking member.

I think all of this is obvious Buffalo.

What people here are alleging, in order to aid Mrs. Pelosi (apparently), is that the information you listed is either a fabrication of CIA making or totally unimportant because we should all be focused on hating Bush and trying to prosecute him for his "crimes." The fact that Pelosi may now be complicit in those "crimes" seems lost on this crowd. Just as the fact that she brought all this on herself or the possibility that the Dems might not really want a "truth" commission is lost. They are seeing this entirely with partisan blinders.

Partisan? When the Republicans are focusing on what Pelosi knew rather than what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled/Rice did? After the same bastards outed Valerie Plame? You guys are such tools.

There were over 40 briefings;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182533815302417.html


MAY 11, 2009

What Congress Knew
Congress got 40 briefings from the CIA on
interrogations.


Try a nonbiased source please.



Yes, Democrats knew, Rockefeller Knew, Pelosi Knew, former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senators Pat Roberts conferms that She knew, as the head of the; Now prove it.




She should have known, She was the seinor Democrat on the Dammed Committee, she was the ranking member.
Well considering most of the times the dems were locked out during the bush years that irrelevant.

Try a nonbiased source please.

Now prove it.

Well considering most of the times the dems were locked out during the bush years that irrelevant.


No, your are the one to disagree with the report from the WSJ, you disprove that report.

And you can't, because it is a nonbias report.

Really locked out from their committee assignments? and the Democrats and the news didn't say a peep about it?

:roflmao:

Desperate now, aren't you.

Post #76 is proof that the written records of the CIA do not necessarily translate into what the briefs actually contained. Panetta admitted as such.

Mod Note: Buffalo & PJ, I am not going to let this entire thread become a debate about source material.

This is what happens with the two of you. In about ten more posts we're going to just degenerate into comments that begin with "Grasshopper" and "Buffy". Really. I don't care how much the two of you hate eachother.

If you have SOMETHING to offer that furthers the discussion, by all means offer it. If you have some opposing material, or relevent commentary on that material, then by all means, offer it. But I'll lock this thread before I sit here and read 13 million comments between the two of your telling the other one how duped, dumb, biased or uninformed they are.

Um super the legitimacy of a source used in debate is in fact germane to the debate.

Um super the legitimacy of a source used in debate is in fact germane to the debate.

You're right. When I saw the source, I also got a little squinty-eyed. There's a fine line between saying, "I notice you used an opinion pieces..." and engaging in a tit-for-tat debate about eachother. This is what tends to happen with the two of you.

I can site at least ten threads where the debate between the two of you becomes a debate about the other's style or delivery and NOT a debate about the OP or relevant issue.

~String

You're right. When I saw the source, I also got a little squinty-eyed. There's a fine line between saying, "I notice you used an opinion pieces..." I don't have a problem with opinion pieces I have a problem with the WSJ opinion pages.
and engaging in a tit-for-tat debate about eachother. This is what tends to happen with the two of you.

I can site at least ten threads where the debate between the two of you becomes a debate about the other's style or delivery and NOT a debate about the OP or relevant issue.

~String

You really don't want to bring up mine and buffalo's history. Because I can show you probably sat on your ass about a complaint about him because it came from me.

You really don't want to bring up mine and buffalo's history. Because I can show you probably sat on your ass about a complaint about him because it came from me.

Mod Note: I've sat on complaints about the two of you for a while now. Right now I'm sitting on one about you, in particular. I generally discuss with Mad before I act on any of your complaints. I think you both simper and whine about a lot of bullshit. Entire threads are hijacked on a daily basis (like now) because of your fights.

If I had my way, I'd have this system force the two of you on ignore. We'd finally be able to have a debate about the actual topic and NOT about who's wining about who called eachother "grasshopper" and "Buffy".

I implore you to appeal your complaint to Plazma. He'll confirm that actions have been taken against BOTH of you for your activities. Until then, consider this conversation over. Any further discussion about the discussion, insult, and my moderation will be deleted.

PM me if you want to discuss this further. Or just PM Plazma.

Partisan?

Yes, partisan. You've refused to look at this issue other than anything else. You've been cornered by String and cornered by me and on both occasions (as is the case now), you can't argue a position, so you throw your hands up and try to change the topic of the conversation.


When the Republicans are focusing on what Pelosi knew rather than what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled/Rice did? After the same bastards outed Valerie Plame? You guys are such tools.

I'm not a Republican, don't care what they are focusing on. I do care about what this thread is focused on, and it isn't "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice" and what they did. That's for another thread. You can go and start it, if you like.

The simple fact is that it may appear the years of Democratic moral outrage about Bush may have been exposed as nothing more than an elaborate political maneuver, and you and your fellow travelers, who either fell for it or actually hate the man and his policies, seem incapable of dealing with the possibility of this new reality. You quite literally are turning cartwheels to warp what is happening into a political stunt -- from the right -- to keep your illusions about your leaders alive. Today, for example, we have the Senate (with a 90-6 vote) overwhelmingly reject the proposal to close Gitmo. This, after years of the Democrats whining about it. And this comes, what, a few days after Obama restarted the dreaded military tribunals the Democrats castigated Bush about? So where's the outrage now?

And for the record, I've commented on this site and elsewhere about how strongly I disagree with what happened to Plame, regardless of what I think of her and her husband. It was illegal and wrong.

And so, the leftist hero from San Fran, the bastion of liberal thought in America, Nancy Pelosi is your idea of a bastion of liberal thought in America?
You guys need to get out more.

The simple fact is that it may appear the years of Democratic moral outrage about Bush may have been exposed as nothing more than an elaborate political maneuver, and you and your fellow travelers, who either fell for it or actually hate the man and his policies, seem incapable of dealing with the possibility of this new reality. The only people who think Pelosi and her Beltway crowd have been the moral or intellectual leadership of the anti-W folks are you guys. If Pelosi were proven tomorrow to have been in the pay of Karl Rove for the past eight years, who would be most surprised? Not me.

The definition of definitions is the entire fucking case! What "case"? We're not in court. We haven't even appointed a prosecutor yet. In the real world meanwhile, no one but the Krazycrowd has any doubt about whether such things as, to pick on one of the more famous among the dozens of erstwhile forbidden techniques employed, water torture (it's common name for hundreds of years), is torture.

If huge, diabolical plots were disrupted because we made certain detainees cough up info under duress, then that's something that would give a reasonable, non-partisan pause 1) It's impossible to discover that from these documents. 2) Your idea of "reasonable, non-partisan" is a sick joke. No reasonable citizen of a free and democratic country would be "given pause" by discovering that his government had tortured information out of somebody, except to wonder how his country had acquired such a government.

That hasn't happened for many years.
”
OK, Ice. Then please, enlighten us all by PROVING it. Prove a negative?
Typical. You make the silliest, least plausible, most obviously biased and politically deluded assertions imaginable, shit straight off the wingnut radio rants - like the CIA normally tells the truth to Congress and the public when it favors Republican propaganda efforts - and see no need for even the skimpiest of arguments, and you demand that I prove negatives - not only negatives, but stuff that anyone who has read a newspaper regularly has taken for granted for years now.

All; you have to do is remind me of when, in any recent years, the CIA has been "called on the carpet" by Congress. I say they haven't been. Until they are, none of the stuff about how cooperative they are when called on the carpet (mostly bs anyway) even applies.

As for Niger, you are aware that Tenet hedged on this.
- - -
I won't get into the Wilson episode too deeply, but Tenet says: You actually quote Tenet as a source of information about the integrity of CIA behavior under his management? Too funny.

I'm not sure it was called on the carpet about anything in the past 10 years, No kidding. So all that ginned up insult about my claims, denials alleged, and so forth, was just you being you - my actual assertions are common knowledge.
but I listed all the events of the 1980s, which is the last time the agency operated "gloves off," and it came clean on all of them And you know that it ceased operating "gloves off" and "came clean" how, exactly? Appearances - such as the death squads in Iraq and the interrogation setups in Bagram et al and the renditions program planet-wide and the involvements in Timor, Colombia, Yugoslavia, Israel, et al - suggest otherwise. And if you really believe the officials involved "came clean" about the Reagan-era abuses - enjoy the voices, they're all the reality you will ever know.

She's kind of a big deal. I mean, she's speaker of the house and third in line to the presidency. Plus, she's been one of the ringleaders of the "moral outrage" surrounding this entire debate about the water-boarding, so if it turns out she is full of shit, as I believe she is, then that's pretty fucking significant. None of those circumstances point to significance in the torture issue. She had no power, and seems to have had no role except observational if that, in W&Co's torture program. Her only apparent role now, in the torture matter, is to provide a pivot for more of the inflammatory playpen media noise proven so useful in obstructing the country's governance for the past several years. The notion that sanctimony on Pelosi's part somehow absolves criminal guilt on W&Co's part is an easy sell in the modern media world - but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

Meanwhile, if you want to do her in for real, if your goals are honest and not more shell-gaming of the citizenry, then the option of prosecution lies in front of you. I would join you and the entire baying chorus of rightwing jackals in calling for a special prosecutor, or a Church Commission, or anything of that nature, investigating the issue of who knew what and when, and what exactly has been going on. Until you guys join the rest of us in proposing something like that, reasonable people are safe in assuming you're just up to more of the familiar same, screwing around in the partisan mud.

1) It's impossible to discover that from these documents.

How the hell can you say that? Have you studied the CIA? Are you familiar with this entire senario enough to make such a blatant statement. If so, based upon what research do you come to this conclusion. What history of personal research can you site that leads you to this understanding? Up until now you've made statements (like the above) and backed it up with nothing at all other than your good word.

The word "impossible" carries the with it a very blatant understanding that YOU know for certain this thing. How, pray tell, do you come to make such a statement?

~String

Nancy Pelosi is your idea of a bastion of liberal thought in America?

She is a leftist from one of the most Leftist districts in the country.

The fact she doesn't satisfy your personal definition of liberal is irrelevant. In the terms of this discussion, she is a liberal -- or more liberal -- in at least relative terms to the other men and women we are speaking of. It would be nice if you could acknowledge this, but I doubt you will.


What "case"? We're not in court. We haven't even appointed a prosecutor yet. In the real world meanwhile, no one but the Krazycrowd has any doubt about whether such things as, to pick on one of the more famous among the dozens of erstwhile forbidden techniques employed, water torture (it's common name for hundreds of years), is torture.

The court of public opinion is in session. Surely, this is obvious. And yes, I have agreed that waterboarding is torture. The issue String raised, which I concur on, is that if these memos are going to be presented as evidence about the heinousness of the act, then we should know the whole story. That is, we should know whether it worked. If it did, the issue becomes more problematic for me. If it doesn't, then it's not an issue at all. We shouldn't do it. Period.


1) It's impossible to discover that from these documents.

For argument's sake, let's say you're right.

That doesn't mean, however, that a full accounting of the effectiveness of the program can be made with other releases that show us what they take was from these techniques. This seems simple enough.


2) Your idea of "reasonable, non-partisan" is a sick joke. No reasonable citizen of a free and democratic country would be "given pause" by discovering that his government had tortured information out of somebody, except to wonder how his country had acquired such a government.

Well, you're wrong.

I wager there are plenty of people who would indeed pause for a moment if they learned that a plot to detonate a dirty bomb had been discovered and subsequently thwarted thanks to these interrogation techniques. And the fact your brain seems incapable of comprehending this situation is precisely why you're so lost. Apparently, you're trying to live in a theoretical world where causes and effects aren't linked and moral ideals are more important than results. I ask you: What American would not consent to torturing a suspect to save the lives of thousands of innocents? I also ask you: What sort of man wouldn't even consider the above?

The problem, of course, is that the so-called ticking time bomb scenario (and others) seem to have never occurred, which is part of why their justification for the torture is foolish. But we are all really talking in pure ignorance until we really know what the torture produced, which is why people like String and myself want to know. Again, this seems simple enough.


Prove a negative? Typical. You make the silliest, least plausible, most obviously biased and politically deluded assertions imaginable, shit straight off the wingnut radio rants - like the CIA normally tells the truth to Congress and the public when it favors Republican propaganda efforts - and see no need for even the skimpiest of arguments, and you demand that I prove negatives - not only negatives, but stuff that anyone who has read a newspaper regularly has taken for granted for years now.

Then it shouldn't be hard to post something backing up your position, should it, Ice? You've been asked by String. You've been asked by me. But as usual, you do nothing and allow your opinions to stand as facts. That's what is silly.

To contrast, I gave you numerous, specific examples of when the agency was called to account and did. Meanwhile, you make ridiculous claims about it having an unapproved budget and favoring Republicans -- all of which leads me to conclude you are either stupid, naive or hopelessly biased to actually believe such things. I mean, you are aware that Tenet sent Wilson to Niger, right? That would be Wilson, the DEMOCRAT.

Furthermore, the most cursory glance of the agency's history reveals that it does have a bias, and that bias is in favor of whatever president is in power and has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. This makes sense, as the agency works for the president. And here, it is worth noting that the biggest black eyes the agency has come from programs started and encourage by DEMOCRATIC presidents (Operation CHAOS, Castro assassination attempts).


All; you have to do is remind me of when, in any recent years, the CIA has been "called on the carpet" by Congress.

How about the 9/11 commission?

How about the oversight group that looked into the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war?

Those of kind of big ones. . .


I say they haven't been. Until they are, none of the stuff about how cooperative they are when called on the carpet (mostly bs anyway) even applies.

You say they haven't been?

Well, stop the presses. Someone on a website says they haven't been, so we should all accept that as gospel. The problem is there is a very public and official record that disputes your ignorant claims.


You actually quote Tenet as a source of information about the integrity of CIA behavior under his management? Too funny.

I'm certainly no fan of the man, but what I quoted are factual elements that can be checked.

The Niger report came from the DIA and the CIA was asked to investigate it, so it sent Wilson. Later, the CIA actually removed claims about it from one speech, only to see it put back in the State of the Union later, over its protests. It never "misled" Congress on this issue as you claimed. Never. So either you're wrong, you're lying or you're just stupid. Pick one.

Elsewhere, you claimed Tenet was "appointed to lie to Congress." Can you post anything that backs that idiotic claim up? Anything? You've already been asked once. . .


No kidding. So all that ginned up insult about my claims, denials alleged, and so forth, was just you being you - my actual assertions are common knowledge.

I'm the only person posting facts. Your spouting opinion. Bring something substantive to the table. Please. We're all waiting. . . .


And you know that it ceased operating "gloves off" and "came clean" how, exactly? Appearances - such as the death squads in Iraq and the interrogation setups in Bagram et al and the renditions program planet-wide and the involvements in Timor, Colombia, Yugoslavia, Israel, et al - suggest otherwise.

How about a link for all this nonsense? You know, proof?


And if you really believe the officials involved "came clean" about the Reagan-era abuses - enjoy the voices, they're all the reality you will ever know.

I guess you missed the Boland Amendment? The Tower Commission?


None of those circumstances point to significance in the torture issue. She had no power, and seems to have had no role except observational if that, in W&Co's torture program. Her only apparent role now, in the torture matter, is to provide a pivot for more of the inflammatory playpen media noise proven so useful in obstructing the country's governance for the past several years. The notion that sanctimony on Pelosi's part somehow absolves criminal guilt on W&Co's part is an easy sell in the modern media world - but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

The issue is not whether she had the power to do anything, which she did, the issue is whether she lied about her knowledge of the program, which it appears she has. And your transition into W&Co complaints has been noted. As has been said, about half a dozen times now, W&Co are not what this thread is about, and indeed no one here is arguing about absolving them from anything. What we are discussing is what Pelosi knew and whether her claims about being lied to by the CIA and about the CIA lying now are believable. I think they are not.


Meanwhile, if you want to do her in for real, if your goals are honest and not more shell-gaming of the citizenry, then the option of prosecution lies in front of you.

Prosecution for what?


I would join you and the entire baying chorus of rightwing jackals in calling for a special prosecutor, or a Church Commission, or anything of that nature, investigating the issue of who knew what and when, and what exactly has been going on. Until you guys join the rest of us in proposing something like that, reasonable people are safe in assuming you're just up to more of the familiar same, screwing around in the partisan mud.

I've said I think a truth commission or whatever you want to call it is a bad idea. And this episode demonstrates how what used to be a wet dream of the Democrats would actually blow up in their faces. That is, they knew about, were to some degree "in-on" and supported all the things they have whined about, under a cloak of moral outrage, for eight years. No doubt, the true blue Lefties, like yourself, are horrified by this and disappointed. But hey, that's politics, right? What is less clear is why people like you are willing to stick up for the Democrats, while at the same time, clamoring for the Republicans to swing. I think I know why.

I'm ducking nothing.

Wrong. You're ducking the three points put forward in my prior post, which were highlighted in the Maddow excerpt. You make the fallacious argument that it is "not [your] job to waste [your] time undermining points that have not been proven".


(1) Four prominent Democrats have disputed the CIA's records. These are retired Sen. Bob Graham, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, and House Appropriations Committie chair David Obey. This fact is fairly common knowledge at this point; see Thrush, "Obey demands CIA correction (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Obey_demands_CIA_correction_.html)", already posted in this thread:


Obey, a close Nancy Pelosi ally, joins former Florida Sen. Bob Graham and current West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller in disputing the document ...

Count 'em, Counte: Obey, Pelosi, Graham, Rockefeller. That's four. Who knows? By now the list has grown, but we'll wait on that until we hash out what's already on the record for you, since you see fit to doubt what anyone paying attention to the situation would already be aware of.

Rep. Obey made the point explicitly:


In light of current controversy about CIA briefing practices, I was surprised to learn that the agency erroneously listed an appropriations staffer as being in a key briefing on September 19, 2006, when in fact he was not. The list the agency released entitled “Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs)”, shows that House Appropriations Committee defense appropriations staffer Paul Juola was in that briefing on that date. In fact, Mr. Juola recollects that he walked members to the briefing room, met [former CIA Director] General Micheal Hayden and Mr.Walker, who were the briefers, and was told that he could not attend the briefing. We request that you immediately correct this record.

(qtd. in Thrush)

You're welcome to attempt to prove that Obey did not ever send such a letter.

Former Sen. Graham has made the point repeatedly. You can read (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363) or even hear (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=104196363&m=104196330) Graham's remarks to NPR's All Things Considered last Friday:


"Several weeks ago, when this issue started to bubble up, I called the CIA and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed," Graham tells Robert Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of '02, two in September."

Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined that on three of the four dates there was no briefing held."

He adds: "On one date, Sept. 27, '02, there was a briefing held and, according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation."

Graham says the CIA was initially reticent when he told the agency what he had found in his notes.

"They said, 'We will check and call back,'" Graham recalled. "When they finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates."

Graham says the agency offered no explanation regarding how it came up with the other dates.

Let us examine the accented statement above: When they finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates.

That's a fairly explicit charge: The CIA indicated that its information was erroneous.

You're welcome to prove that Graham did not state that the CIA "indicated that [Graham] was correct".

An aide to Sen. Rockefeller advised Glenn Thrush ("Another Dem casts doubt on CIA briefing memo (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Another_Dem_casts_doubt_on_CIA_briefing_memo.html)") that the CIA records were erroneous:


We are not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the document. We can tell you that in the particular entry stating that Senator Rockefeller was briefed on February 4th of 2003 with an asterisk also noting him as later individually briefed -- that is not correct, or at least is not being reported correctly by people reading the document. The Democratic staff director attended a briefing on Feb. 4, but Senator Rockefeller was not present and was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community. He was first personally briefed by the intelligence community on Sept 4th, 2003 ....

..... Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly stated he was not told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program’s legality and effectiveness. With more information coming to light in 2004, Senator Rockefeller became increasingly concerned about the program, and in early 2005 he launched a full-scale effort to investigate. The Senate Intelligence Committee's review is ongoing and he believes it is critically important that there be a full accounting of the Bush Administration's interrogation policies.

I would be very interested to see Sen. Rockefeller's denial of that claim. You're welcome to provide it.

And Nancy Pelosi? Pick your quote. Given that she's at the center of the controversy, it would be very difficult for you to claim that her dispute with CIA records is not established.

How about "The CIA was misleading the Congress" (Miller (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-torture15-2009may15,0,2174313.story))?

That one's pretty clear, isn't it?

How about responding to the question of whether the CIA lied to her in 2002: "Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am." (Epstein (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003117655))

Any room for confusion?

And don't bother complaining about the length of this post. You chose to regard a very simple claim—that four prominent Democrats disputed the CIA's records—as unproven. Very well, I will accommodate.


(2) Panetta has, reiterated what Dennis Blair (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2009-05-06-reyes-eit-letter0001.pdf) wrote in a letter to Rep. Sivestre Reyes (Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence)—


This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.

(Boldface accent added)

— in a message to CIA employees (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/panetta_its_up_to_congress_to_figure_out_whether_o .php)—


As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

(qtd. in Roth; boldface accent added)

—and failed to unequivocally declare the CIA's records accurate.

Given that we have it in Blair and Panetta's own words, it's hard to say that his unwillingness to vouch for the veracity of the CIA's records is not established.

I will concede that I may have been wrong about Panetta making the point "repeatedly" (I have yet to find the other references); still, though, you are, welcome to demonstrate that the letter is fictitious, and that Panetta never advised Agency employees as claimed.


(3) Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and John Boehner (R-OH) have called for the release of more documents pertaining to the situation:


Following up on my letter of April 20, 2009, I am writing to reiterate my request for a full, complete, and correct list of the dates, locations, and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings with respect to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the Central Intelligence Agency, which I have not received. In addition, I am formally requesting copies of all Memoranda for the Record prepared memorializing the substance and attendees at any and all such briefings.

With respect to the list of Members briefed on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, while I appreciate the interim response on April 22 I am concerned that the list provided is inaccurate. It is less comprehensive and complete than other briefing lists that the CIA has previously provided to the Committee, and it also appears to contain errors. Moreover, since the documents already in the possession of the Committee clearly indicate that careful records were kept with respect to these briefings by the CIA, it is difficult to understand the delay in receiving a full and complete accounting. This information should be disclosed fully, accurately, and immediately, because the public record on this issue cannot be a selective one ....

(Hoekstra (http://www.freep.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/04/hoekstra.pdf); boldface accent added)

Three days after that letter, Boehner checked in:


In a letter sent Friday to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, asked for the complete list of briefings, attendees, and notes taken at the briefings.

Hoekstra said Monday he has not received a response yet. House Republican leader John Boehner joined Hoekstra's request.

"Congress and the American people deserve a full and complete set of facts about what information was yielded by CIA's interrogation program, and they deserve to know which of their representatives in Congress were briefed about these techniques and the extent of those briefings," said Boehner.

(Associated Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30440910/wid/3/))

And, of course, you're welcome to demonstrate that Boehner never made these comments.

Therein lie the facts that you refuse to address because you apparently feel they are not well-established—excuse me, proven.

For all the noise and bluster coming from Republicans, the record thus far doesn't support their irrational condemnation. Senator Bond finds it outrageous that the Speaker would accuse the CIA of lying? But what if it's true?

Therein lies the question, Counte. Both sides of this battle say they want more documents released. The political positions describe certain potential outcomes:


Republican:

• Pelosi is lying through her teeth, and merely dragging out the inevitable.

Democratic:

• Pelosi is correct, and the GOP is simply making noise for the sake of hearing themselves talk.

Middle Ground:

• Pelosi is somewhat correct and generally exonerated, although the CIA didn't so much lie or mislead (is there really a difference?) as simply, once again, get its facts wrong.

Additionally, surely Boehner and Hoekstra, among others, cannot really think that an investigation would indict only Democrats. There are plenty of Republicans on that list (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/enhanced-interrogation-briefings-to-congress.pdf).

Personally, I'm quite pleased with this scandal; it pushes us closer to a real, substantive investigation to determine just what the hell happened. And given the options, I choose to be amused, instead of furious that this would come about because of what is, more and more, looking like a desperate political stunt by a badly wounded Republican Party.


To date, I'd wager I posted more substance from direct sources than anyone in this thread.

Oh, probably. Then again, it's not what you have, but what you do with it. Still, though, let's check in on that.


• Posts to Date (5.20.09, 12.06 PDT): 8
• Official Source References: 2 (see #2257176/46 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2257176&postcount=46), 2258516/88 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258516&postcount=88))

A bit anticlimactic, it seems. The Geneva Conventions and George Tenet's book in re: Niger yellowcake.


It's not my job to waste my time undermining points that have not been proven. It's your job to prove the points first. Or at least attempt to.

Fair enough. I figured you were paying attention to the issue. My bad; I won't make that mistake again.


And my reaction has nothing to do with your "scary liberal dyke" and everything to do with your sloppy methodology.

Actually your paranoia and hatred about liberals and Democrats make for obscene blinders. Apparently, Democrats and liberals aren't allowed to put facts into perspective. The underlying facts you dispute are well-established elsewhere.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but shows like Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show are entertainment. Few, indeed, are those who would claim such enterprises to be hard news.

They're art, Counte.

You chose to focus on the fact of Rachel Maddow. I, however, was presenting what her guest said. And if you read the subsequent three paragraphs, perhaps you might understand. Again, since I said it then—


One of the ironic effects of this dispute may be that we move closer to a full investigation of the torture policy, including who authorized what, who knew what, and when everything happened.

—and repeated it in this post—


Personally, I'm quite pleased with this scandal; it pushes us closer to a real, substantive investigation to determine just what the hell happened.

—just to make it clear for you, let me reiterate that this whole situation is moving us closer toward an actual investigation of the important issues.

But you're just too focused on your hatred of Democrats and liberals to look past the superficial political fight.


That is, you think that posting a transcript of two people blathering on television proves something, when in fact, it does not.

Counte, if your reading comprehension was not so tainted by your political poison, you might be capable of avoiding these sad moments. You've screwed up your face and balled up your fists and you're wailing about something that isn't there, all in the name of some political agenda that, to anyone unfortunate enough to have decided to read your posts, amounts to nothing more than a furious anti-identification.

Why not be affirmative? Why not actually assert something substantive? Are you afraid that people will do unto you as you have done unto them? Or is it simply beyond your capacity?

If you're confused about something I post, ask. You'll find that I'm generally quite happy to respond and clarify. Don't just presume and pitch a tantrum; you're embarrassing yourself.


I saw, for example, a panel on CNN debating CIA and one of them started mouthing off about how blacks distrusted the agency because it spied on Martin Luther King (not true, see the Church Committee Report). Can I post a transcript of that as "proof" that CIA spied on King?

If you want.


Seriously, what in your post was substantive? You talk about four "senior Democrats are all on records saying, contesting the CIA‘s version of what they told." Well, no shit. They would, wouldn't they? Because, like Pelosi, they are up the same shit creek with no paddle.

The first part, naming Bob Graham and pointing back to Spidergoat's post in order to establish that the issue was already part of the discussion. The rest was opinion.

I'm sorry to have confused you; String and I don't fight all the time. We do have more than one mode of engagement at Sciforums.

As to shit creek, right now so is the CIA. And the paddle? Well, it's not yet clear just who has a paddle. Or a shovel. Or, such as may be needed, a bulldozer.


And like Pelosi, they know they can crow about being lied to or misled and a great many people will buy that, either for partisan reasons or because they think the CIA just goes around lying to Congressmen all the time, an assertion no one has been able to prove, as of yet, in this thread.

Cynicism. That's all you have right now. And, hell, it's a convenient cynicism, not a genuine one.

So tell us, Counte, what was it that Leon Panetta did that made him so much less "abyssmal (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2133603&postcount=1)"? What, did he give you a chance to rip Pelosi? Big fucking deal. Pelosi's a spineless douche.

You're willing to note the high stakes (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258003&postcount=55), but you don't seem to understand what that means. We, the People of the United States of America, have a huge problem on our hands. And right now all we've got to fix it is, on one hand, a bunch of giant douches, and to the other, a bunch of shit sandwiches.

Scream and yell about Pelosi all you want; it doesn't actually get us any closer to a genuine and necessary resolution. The bloodletting over this ought to be impressive. And buying into the (Republican) line that American politics are somehow simple and principled is absolutely ridiculous. One could easily point out that the issue here in this thread is Pelosi only because the Republicans are trying to shift focus from the real issue, but there's a hell of a lot more going on than that.


Your "latest count" leads to a blog about whether a staffer was in the room. Whether he was or wasn't is hardly the issue -- and it certainly has little to do with what we're discussing here.

It notes the four, which is germane to the point about Graham; it's not just one retired senator from Florida, but also three current office holders who dispute the CIA's records.

In terms of who was in the room, it also goes back to the veracity of the CIA's records, which is at the heart of the issue. If those records are correct, Pelosi is fucked. If they're incorrect, we're all fucked.


By repeating this chum, which is little more than majoring in the minor, you're repeating the attempts by the Democrats to portray Pelosi as some sort of dupe who went to these briefings and has no responsibility for or knowledge of what was said therein.

Maybe in your world. But some of us prefer to dwell in the realm of More Important Things.


That's doesn't pass the stupid test, if you ask me.

Well, you certainly know stupid, don't you?
____________________

Notes:

Thrush, Glenn. "Obey demands CIA correction". May 19, 2009. Politico.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Obey_demands_CIA_correction_.html

—————. "Another Dem casts doubt on CIA briefing memo". May 12, 2009. Politico.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Another_Dem_casts_doubt_on_CIA_briefing_memo.html

National Public Radio. "Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi on CIA Briefings". All Things Considered. May 15, 2009. NPR.org. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363

Miller, Greg. "Pelosi says Congress was misled about CIA tactics". Los Angeles Times. May 15, 2009. LATimes.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-torture15-2009may15,0,2174313.story

Epstein, Edward. "Pelosi Accuses CIA, Bush Officials of ‘Misleading Congress’ About Waterboarding". CQ Politics. May 14, 2009. CQpolitics.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003117655

Blair, Dennis C. "Letter to the Honorable Silvestre Reyes". May 6, 2009. WhoRunsGov.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2009-05-06-reyes-eit-letter0001.pdf

Roth, Zachary. "Panetta: It's Up To Congress To Figure Out Whether Our Records Are Accurate". TPM Muckraker. May 15, 2009. TPMMuckraker.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/panetta_its_up_to_congress_to_figure_out_whether_o .php

Hoekstra, Pete. "Letter to the Honorable Dennis C. Blair". April 24, 2009. Freep.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.freep.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/04/hoekstra.pdf

Associated Press. "GOP lawmakers: Release interrogation records". April 27, 2009. MSNBC.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30440910/

Central Intelligence Agency. "Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs)". WhoRunsGov.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/enhanced-interrogation-briefings-to-congress.pdf

Princess Pelosi has admitted to being breifed.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/15/pelosi-admits-waterboard-briefing/?page=3


Pelosi admits waterboard briefing

Accuses CIA of lying to her - 'They mislead us all the time'
By Eli Lake and S.A. Miller Friday, May 15, 2009

Under pressure to explain conflicting stories, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged for the first time that in 2003 she was told waterboarding and other tough tactics were being used on suspected terrorists and did not object to them, [/CENTER]

Yes, Princess Nancy in Her own words.

Mrs. Pelosi said the first time she was told the tactics were being used on suspects was when her top intelligence aide notified her on Feb. 5, 2003.


"In February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the intelligence committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions," she said.

Who's lying?

EVERYONE DOES!

Power is a bitch.

Power is a bitch.

Exactly, no truer word.

Yeah, I guess we will think about it once the people that ACTUALLY ORDERED IT are brought to justice.

That's a scary thought. They were acting on the vague "army field manual", with the explicit approval of all the right people in government, and now they're in danger of being prosecuted for it?

Nobody sees any problems with this?

Nancy Pelosi is your idea of a bastion of liberal thought in America?

No... I meant she comes from and represents San Francisco -- that city is the bastion of liberal thought in America

No they were not acting on the Army field manual. They specifically parted from it. And as I said, those that ordered it should be our focus. That means the "right people in government", not necessarily the low level operatives.

Interrogations following the Army field manual did get results, and it was only when that was ordered to be halted and the torture started that the suspects stopped talking. Al Quida is trained to resist torture, but not trained to be outsmarted.

Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/)


An FBI agent testifies that an al-Qaida prisoner provided useful intelligence until the CIA got rough -- and casts doubt on Bush's statements about the effectiveness of harsh interrogations.

No they were not acting on the Army field manual. They specifically parted from it. And as I said, those that ordered it should be our focus. That means the "right people in government", not necessarily the low level operatives.

Interrogations following the Army field manual did get results, and it was only when that was ordered to be halted and the torture started that the suspects stopped talking. Al Quida is trained to resist torture, but not trained to be outsmarted.

Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/)


An FBI agent testifies that an al-Qaida prisoner provided useful intelligence until the CIA got rough -- and casts doubt on Bush's statements about the effectiveness of harsh interrogations.

That may be. The point is, at least in this discussion, not whether waterboarding was effective on the 3 people who planned 9/11. It's whether Pelosi was aware it was taking place. She did. So whatever fate she so loudly wants for them, and the condemnations she hurled at them, are due to her.

No they were not acting on the Army field manual. They specifically parted from it. And as I said, those that ordered it should be our focus. That means the "right people in government", not necessarily the low level operatives.

Interrogations following the Army field manual did get results, and it was only when that was ordered to be halted and the torture started that the suspects stopped talking. Al Quida is trained to resist torture, but not trained to be outsmarted.

Soufan: CIA torture actually hindered our intelligence gathering (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/)


An FBI agent testifies that an al-Qaida prisoner provided useful intelligence until the CIA got rough -- and casts doubt on Bush's statements about the effectiveness of harsh interrogations.

Yes really, what does a FBI agent have to hide his face for?


http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/story.jpg

FBI agent Ali Soufan testifies from behind a black curtain and a room divider, right, in Washington Wednesday, during a hearing to examine the Bush administration's detention and interrogation program.

George Little, a CIA spokesman, suggested to Salon in an e-mail that Soufan might be wrong. "Today we heard one account of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah," Little said. "There are others."

Who has more to lose by telling the truth?

Who has more to lose by telling the truth?

Pelosi - because it looks bad not only on her, but on the entire Democratic party.

The CIA ain't going anywhere. Believe you me.

Not that there is any there here...but could this not be a simple misunderstanding? Why, if the premise is true, does it have to be a lie?

That may be. The point is, at least in this discussion, not whether waterboarding was effective on the 3 people who planned 9/11. It's whether Pelosi was aware it was taking place. She did. So whatever fate she so loudly wants for them, and the condemnations she hurled at them, are due to her.
You don't know that, and Panetta said as much.

Yes really, what does a FBI agent have to hide his face for?

George Little, a CIA spokesman, suggested to Salon in an e-mail that Soufan might be wrong. "Today we heard one account of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah," Little said. "There are others."
Character assassination when you don't like what is said? Soufan may be wrong, anyone could be wrong, but his testimony remains. It sure looks like some people were tortured to specifically elicit false confessions linking Iraq to Al Quida in order to justify Bush's desired war. Because they were getting good information using allowed Army field manual techniques that do not involve torture.

You're ducking the three points put forward in my prior post, which were highlighted in the Maddow excerpt. You make the fallacious argument that it is "not [your] job to waste [your] time undermining points that have not been proven".


(1) Four prominent Democrats have disputed the CIA's records. These are retired Sen. Bob Graham, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, and House Appropriations Committie chair David Obey. This fact is fairly common knowledge at this point; see Thrush, "Obey demands CIA correction (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Obey_demands_CIA_correction_.html)", already posted in this thread:


Obey, a close Nancy Pelosi ally, joins former Florida Sen. Bob Graham and current West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller in disputing the document ...

Count 'em, Counte: Obey, Pelosi, Graham, Rockefeller. That's four. Who knows? By now the list has grown, but we'll wait on that until we hash out what's already on the record for you, since you see fit to doubt what anyone paying attention to the situation would already be aware of.

Wow. Four Democrats all saying they have been lied to.

I'm pretty impressed.

And I'm glad you decided to pile on with quotes and footnotes to craft a huge post that LOOKS impressive, but in reality says little or nothing on topic and simply repeats the allegations of four Congressmen. Your usual tricks are in full force. . .

My initial argument, per my thinking, stands: That is, what are these men going to say? That they were told the truth? That their outrage was little more than an act? They aren't going to do this. They are going to stand up for Pelosi, who probably raised money for them with her PAC at some point, and cover their own asses. This shouldn't surprise you, but instead we getting you quoting their remarks like gospel. Which is fine. I'm glad you posted them. None deal with WHAT they were told. All deal with scheduling conflicts or supposed errors. This is very different from lying.


Rep. Obey made the point explicitly:


In light of current controversy about CIA briefing practices, I was surprised to learn that the agency erroneously listed an appropriations staffer as being in a key briefing on September 19, 2006, when in fact he was not. The list the agency released entitled “Member Briefings on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs)”, shows that House Appropriations Committee defense appropriations staffer Paul Juola was in that briefing on that date. In fact, Mr. Juola recollects that he walked members to the briefing room, met [former CIA Director] General Micheal Hayden and Mr.Walker, who were the briefers, and was told that he could not attend the briefing. We request that you immediately correct this record.

(qtd. in Thrush)

You're welcome to attempt to prove that Obey did not ever send such a letter.

Why bother?

What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking topic being discussed here. All that letter contains is a some chicanery about whether a staffer was in the room or not. So what? It has nothing to do with what the brief dealt actually with, or whether Pelosi was there and what she heard. You prance around playing the intellectual, so surely you can see how there is a huge difference in not accurately recording who attended a government meeting (which happens all the time, by the way) and in deliberately LYING about the substance of that meeting. The latter of which being what Pelosi is claiming, and your post here speaks nothing to that point. It's a small whine, issued to try to cast doubt on the process and encourage people like you to look past reality.


Former Sen. Graham has made the point repeatedly. You can read (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104196363) or even hear (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=104196363&m=104196330) Graham's remarks to NPR's All Things Considered last Friday:


"Several weeks ago, when this issue started to bubble up, I called the CIA and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed," Graham tells Robert Siegel. "They gave me four: two in April of '02, two in September."

Graham says he consulted his logs "and determined that on three of the four dates there was no briefing held."

He adds: "On one date, Sept. 27, '02, there was a briefing held and, according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation."

Graham says the CIA was initially reticent when he told the agency what he had found in his notes.

"They said, 'We will check and call back,'" Graham recalled. "When they finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates."

Graham says the agency offered no explanation regarding how it came up with the other dates.

Let us examine the accented statement above: When they finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates.

That's a fairly explicit charge: The CIA indicated that its information was erroneous.

You're welcome to prove that Graham did not state that the CIA "indicated that [Graham] was correct".

Two points:

1. It is impossible for me to prove a negative. It is even more impossible for me to prove something regarding a Senator's schedule, which, as I already mentioned, has little to do with what we're discussing here.

2. Plus, if all the above is true, it shows the CIA admitting an error to a Congressmen. This is a far cry from "lying." It also does NOT SPEAK to the substance of the briefs and what Pelosi knew -- both of which are essentially the topic of this thread. Have you forgotten that?


An aide to Sen. Rockefeller advised Glenn Thrush ("Another Dem casts doubt on CIA briefing memo") that the CIA records were erroneous:

We are not in a position to vouch for the accuracy of the document. We can tell you that in the particular entry stating that Senator Rockefeller was briefed on February 4th of 2003 with an asterisk also noting him as later individually briefed -- that is not correct, or at least is not being reported correctly by people reading the document. The Democratic staff director attended a briefing on Feb. 4, but Senator Rockefeller was not present and was not later briefed individually by anyone in the intelligence community. He was first personally briefed by the intelligence community on Sept 4th, 2003 ....

..... Senator Rockefeller has repeatedly stated he was not told critical information that would have cast significant doubt on the program’s legality and effectiveness. With more information coming to light in 2004, Senator Rockefeller became increasingly concerned about the program, and in early 2005 he launched a full-scale effort to investigate. The Senate Intelligence Committee's review is ongoing and he believes it is critically important that there be a full accounting of the Bush Administration's interrogation policies.

I would be very interested to see Sen. Rockefeller's denial of that claim. You're welcome to provide it.

Again, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


And Nancy Pelosi? Pick your quote. Given that she's at the center of the controversy, it would be very difficult for you to claim that her dispute with CIA records is not established.

How about "The CIA was misleading the Congress" (Miller (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-pelosi-torture15-2009may15,0,2174313.story))?

That one's pretty clear, isn't it?

Yeah. She claims they are lying. I don't buy it and neither does Panetta, and nothing you've shown here bolsters her claims and undermines his. . .


How about responding to the question of whether the CIA lied to her in 2002: "Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am." (Epstein (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003117655))

Any room for confusion?

Yes. Plenty. You keep posting links to Pelosi saying they lied. The issue here is whether she is lying, so posting links to comments from her doesn't exactly bolster your case. I know what she has said. Everyone does. So what?


And don't bother complaining about the length of this post.

Sorry. All of your posts are snobbish, verbose and generally on-topic for only a small percentage of the time.


You chose to regard a very simple claim—that four prominent Democrats disputed the CIA's records—as unproven. Very well, I will accommodate.

It was a claim made on a television show by a talking head. If you wanted me to take it seriously, you should have posted the actual material, as you did in the latter post. Then I at least would have considered it as something more than the palpitations of a biased commentator.



(2) Panetta has, reiterated what Dennis Blair (http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/2009-05-06-reyes-eit-letter0001.pdf) wrote in a letter to Rep. Sivestre Reyes (Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence)—


This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.

(Boldface accent added)

— in a message to CIA employees (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/panetta_its_up_to_congress_to_figure_out_whether_o .php)—


As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

(qtd. in Roth; boldface accent added)



Pay closer attention to the part that says "brief truthfully." It's pretty clear that he is denying he lied to Pelosi or anyone else.


—and failed to unequivocally declare the CIA's records accurate.

Entirely reasonable, given it wasn't his tenure and he has no way of knowing how accurate the minutes are. Basically, he is avoiding making absolutist statements for legal reasons. He knows that if he says they are 100 percent accurate and then it's shown some staff wasn't there when it says he was, then he will be skewered by people like you and the entire substance of the message will be lost, which is NOBODY LIED.





(3) Reps. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and John Boehner (R-OH) have called for the release of more documents pertaining to the situation:

[indent]Following up on my letter of April 20, 2009, I am writing to reiterate my request for a full, complete, and correct list of the dates, locations, and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings with respect to the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the Central Intelligence Agency, which I have not received. In addition, I am formally requesting copies of all Memoranda for the Record prepared memorializing the substance and attendees at any and all such briefings.

With respect to the list of Members briefed on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, while I appreciate the interim response on April 22 I am concerned that the list provided is inaccurate. It is less comprehensive and complete than other briefing lists that the CIA has previously provided to the Committee, and it also appears to contain errors. Moreover, since the documents already in the possession of the Committee clearly indicate that careful records were kept with respect to these briefings by the CIA, it is difficult to understand the delay in receiving a full and complete accounting. This information should be disclosed fully, accurately, and immediately, because the public record on this issue cannot be a selective one ....

(Hoekstra (http://www.freep.com/uploads/pdfs/2009/04/hoekstra.pdf); boldface accent added)

Three days after that letter, Boehner checked in:


In a letter sent Friday to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, asked for the complete list of briefings, attendees, and notes taken at the briefings.

Hoekstra said Monday he has not received a response yet. House Republican leader John Boehner joined Hoekstra's request.

"Congress and the American people deserve a full and complete set of facts about what information was yielded by CIA's interrogation program, and they deserve to know which of their representatives in Congress were briefed about these techniques and the extent of those briefings," said Boehner.

(Associated Press (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30440910/wid/3/))

And, of course, you're welcome to demonstrate that Boehner never made these comments.



These are calls for more information to be released. They do not deal with the veracity of the briefs or what Pelosi knew.


Oh, probably. Then again, it's not what you have, but what you do with it. Still, though, let's check in on that.


• Posts to Date (5.20.09, 12.06 PDT): 8
• Official Source References: 2 (see #2257176/46 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2257176&postcount=46), 2258516/88 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258516&postcount=88))

A bit anticlimactic, it seems. The Geneva Conventions and George Tenet's book in re: Niger yellowcake.

I posted lengthy legal summations from a case book. You're also ignoring all that I posted on issues where CIA has come clean to Congress. I gave numerous specific examples, which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for the crowd crowing about "lying". . .


Actually your paranoia and hatred about liberals and Democrats make for obscene blinders. Apparently, Democrats and liberals aren't allowed to put facts into perspective. The underlying facts you dispute are well-established elsewhere.

No, they aren't. And there is no paranoia or hatred here. I think the Dems I don't vote for are no more clumsy, dumb and inept than the Reps I don't vote for. The fact I choose to attack the former more than the latter on this site has more to do with the mood here than anything else. When nearly every thread is about how horrible America is and how bad the Republicans are, it only seems fair that someone should try to puncture the ridiculous bias exhibited in this place with a little reality.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but shows like Countdown and The Rachel Maddow Show are entertainment. Few, indeed, are those who would claim such enterprises to be hard news.

I agree totally, and yet you cite it and then expect me to take it seriously? That's not going to happen. Again, if you had posted the source material to begin with I might have cared a little more about the points you were making, but Maddow is a water-carrier, nothing more.


—just to make it clear for you, let me reiterate that this whole situation is moving us closer toward an actual investigation of the important issues.

I will bet money no such investigation ever occurs.


Why not be affirmative? Why not actually assert something substantive? Are you afraid that people will do unto you as you have done unto them? Or is it simply beyond your capacity?

Not beyond me, but not my purpose here. I was drug into this conversation simply because I got tired of reading ignorant comments from ignorant people about CIA. Thus, I began asserting substantive facts about the reality that underpins this situation. Of course, this didn't go down well with the usual crowd, who simply want to croak their biased opinions and be told how brilliant they are because the understand how to footnote, etc.


If you're confused about something I post, ask. You'll find that I'm generally quite happy to respond and clarify. Don't just presume and pitch a tantrum; you're embarrassing yourself.


Every time I've asked you anything, you leap to the conclusion that I am taking the piss or being spiteful. I can recall one particular thread, which I am not going to waste the time to search for, where I asked you a question -- not once, but several times -- and you continually refused to answer.


I'm sorry to have confused you; String and I don't fight all the time. We do have more than one mode of engagement at Sciforums.

Is this in-between you publicly attacking him and calling into question his moderation because he doesn't say "how high?" whenever you file private grievances and demand -- your tiny fists beating -- action against those you perceive your enemies? How cute.


Cynicism. That's all you have right now. And, hell, it's a convenient cynicism, not a genuine one.

Unfortunately, my cynicism is a fairly constant personality trait.


So tell us, Counte, what was it that Leon Panetta did that made him so much less "abyssmal (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2133603&postcount=1)"? What, did he give you a chance to rip Pelosi? Big fucking deal. Pelosi's a spineless douche.

For the record, nothing. I still think Panetta is abysmal. My opinion of him has not changed, simply because he is sticking up for his organization and taking on a US Congresswoman who I, too, think is a "spineless douche." He could hardly do less. If he didn't stand up for his employees he would be laughed at in the halls.


You're willing to note the high stakes (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258003&postcount=55), but you don't seem to understand what that means. We, the People of the United States of America, have a huge problem on our hands. And right now all we've got to fix it is, on one hand, a bunch of giant douches, and to the other, a bunch of shit sandwiches.

Scream and yell about Pelosi all you want; it doesn't actually get us any closer to a genuine and necessary resolution. The bloodletting over this ought to be impressive. And buying into the (Republican) line that American politics are somehow simple and principled is absolutely ridiculous. One could easily point out that the issue here in this thread is Pelosi only because the Republicans are trying to shift focus from the real issue, but there's a hell of a lot more going on than that.

I haven't bought the Republican line. And yes, this issue is largely unimportant when compared to the larger issue of what kind of system we should have for detainee interrogation. However, it would seem impossible to have a legitimate debate on that topic if one side of the fence is arguing a position it doesn't really believe in.


Well, you certainly know stupid, don't you?

Yep. And I infrequently encounter it whenever I have to deal with you and your drug-addled responses.

In the broader picture, one of the things I find interesting about this whole sordid affair is that the GOP appears to be simultaneously acknowledging and either underestimating or disregarding whatever degree of political savvy Americans actually have about them.

On the one hand, Republicans are trying to drag the nation down into a bizarre and somewhat complicated scandal. To the other, though, their rhetoric is ridiculously simple, and pretends that Washington politics are simple and straightforward.

Take the argument swirling around that despite the waterboarding, Democrats still voted for various funding packages. It is widely recognized that Congressional Democrats are a spineless bunch who have passed on every opportunity they've had to actually put a stop to all of this bloodthirsty nonsense invoked by the Bush administration and, eventually, Congressional Republicans.

People are aware of this. And yet they still voted for Democrats.

They know damn well that voting to effectively end a war by cutting its funding source is a difficult vote to win, and also that it would have a devastating effect on military morale, especially when the president (e.g., Bush) would leave the troops out there anyway. The People are also largely aware that repealing HJR 114, which the administration claimed as its authorization to start a war based on false pretenses, simply isn't going to happen without a Democratic supermajority and massive, possibly violent protests in the streets.

The Republicans right now are out to hit Pelosi; their big gamble is whether or not people will simply shrug and jump on the bandwagon one more time. So far, it isn't having the intended effect. While a Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118564/Pelosi-Gets-Poor-Marks-Handling-Interrogations-Matter.aspx) suggests Pelosi and Democrats are taking heat for her handling of the mess, a Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/may_2009/toplines_pelosi_and_cia_may_16_17_2009) suggests that slightly more people (within the margin of error) doubt the CIA. By no means are they burying her with this.

Meanwhile, former American Prospect and Atlantic Monthly columnist Matthew Yglesias (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/) suggests that the GOP is blindly rattling a hornets' nest:


Just when it seemed to many that the right had lost its mojo, give conservatives credit: They're still enormously good at ginning up controversies and controlling the news cycle. Thus a story that was once about the Bush administration's decision to authorize barbaric and illegal acts of torture has successfully been morphed into a to-do about Nancy Pelosi's account of CIA briefings.

As political gamesmanship, it's been masterful. I particularly like the way the right has managed to trot out an endless procession of figures willing to express outrage that anyone would ever hint that the CIA might mislead a member of Congress. From conservatives' incredulous responses, you'd think Pelosi had suggested that little green Martians stole her briefing memos.

Masterful? In the short-term political context, so it would seem. But the larger picture suggests the GOP might be making a huge political mistake.


That basic logic hardly amounts to a proof that Pelosi was kept in the dark, and she almost certainly knew more about what was going on at the time than, say, I did. But it does suggest deception is a plausible scenario. And more to the point, it gets us refocused on the real issue here, which is not about what briefings were or were not given to Congress but about the underlying activity that was the subject of the briefings. We've had, for example, a steady drip of evidence, most recently from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, indicating that one main use of Bush-era torture was to compel people to "confess" to the existence of various ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

And here's where the right's tactical acumen comes up short. Various conservative commentators have expressed their hope that gunning for Pelosi will blunt progressive calls for a "truth commission" to thoroughly investigate what really happened on Bush's trip to the "dark side". Fox's Neil Cavuto said we might be in a "Mexican standoff" wherein Pelosi would agree to drop the idea of investigations to prevent herself from attracting scrutiny. Steven Hayes, Dick Cheney's official biographer, said, "Democrats who have been so enthusiastic about truth commissions have to be stopping and saying, OK, wait a second." What conservatives are missing here is that this is a fight they were winning before they started gunning for Pelosi. Their best ally in this fight was Barack Obama, whose desire to "move forward" rather than focusing on the past had been the subject of much consternation. Had conservatives simply reached out to grab the hand that was being extended to them, they could have gotten what they wanted.

But in their zeal to score a tactical win, the right has made a truth commission more likely not less likely. Obama wanted to avoid a backward-looking focus on torture in part because it distracted from his legislative agenda. But if we're going to be looking backward anyway, thanks to conservatives' insistence on complaining about Pelosi, then the move forward strategy lacks a rationale. And far from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin.

There's no sign that Pelosi or anyone else is backing off the truth-commission idea. And, indeed, by suggesting that Pelosi could be a target of an investigation, conservatives have helped cleanse the idea of the odor of victor's justice. The question of CIA briefings of congressional leaders would, after all, be a legitimate subject of inquiry .... But however bad an investigation might make the members of Congress who were supposed to be preventing illegal conduct look, the people actually doing the misdeeds are going to look even worse. Today, the congressional Republicans look extremely clever. But in a few months' time, we'll look back on this as yet another example of a conservative tactical victory that winds up backfiring .... Gamesmanship, in short, can only get you so far. But conservatives sure are good at it.

(ibid)

Yglesias also punches after this strange depiction in recent weeks of the CIA as some bastion of lily-white purity. Adam Serwer (http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=the_cia_lie_to_congress_its_ha), over at The American Prospect, recalls several instances—drawn from Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes—in which the CIA found itself in hot water in relation to large political scandals, including a DCIA who bugged a Senator's office to discredit him in order to keep the Agency off a political hit list, a DCIA convicted of lying to Congress about the overthrow of a democratically-elected president in another country, DCIA Bill Casey, whose testimony in the Iran-Contra affair was described by Secretary of Defense (and former DCIA) Robert Gates as being in "Contempt of Congress from the day he was sworn in", and George Tenet's infamous "Curveball" episode.

Part of the reason the GOP sounds so ridiculous in this scandal is that Republicans seem to be insisting on a focus so narrow as to defeat its own purpose. Not only do they pretend the American people are stupid, or that the CIA is beyond reproach, they also seem to think they will somehow emerge from this scandal untouched. Whatever damage they inflict on Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats, they will not be able to escape the fact that Republicans were the driving force behind the very problems we're discussing. At worst, Pelosi will be found to be lying outright, and that will likely cost her a future in national politics; but by and large, the American people seem to understand the shortcomings demanded on the Washington stage. After all, despite the worthless performance of Congressional Democrats, at least it wasn't entirely contemptible, so voters went with the Democratic Party. In order to change that, the GOP needs to do more than simply drag an ineffective Congressional leader down into the gutter with them. Republicans also need to at least climb up to the sidewalk and hose themselves off, and there's no way to do that when they have been the cheerleaders for such abysmal behavior as the implementation of torture techniques that are only effective at producing false intelligence.

The politics of this scandal are repugnant, but also symptomatic of the GOP's habitual myopia. Pelosi has expressed her confidence in the record, expecting that further documentary releases by the CIA will help her in this dispute. The GOP apparently feels the same for their argument, but there is a deeper question of what that means in the conservative outlook. Do they think they can sting Pelosi a couple more times? Fine. Barring the revelation that she is flat-out lying, she's not going anywhere. Anything short of that, and it seems they'll be happy to cover themselves in shit as long as they manage to splatter some on Pelosi's suit.


• • •



Princess Pelosi has admitted to being breifed.

You're a little bit behind the curve here, Mr. Roam.

The argument at hand is that the CIA claims she was briefed before that, she disputes that claim; the CIA has provided a spreadsheet suggesting certain dates and briefings, and while Pelosi's is the primary issue, four prominent Democrats have specifically disputed the records. The CIA won't put its foot down and say their records are definitively accurate, and has admitted at least once—in the case of Sen. Bob Graham—that their briefing records were, indeed, erroneous.

I think the fact that she found out in 2003 is a point worth considering, and to her detriment. But apparently the GOP wasn't happy with that potential scandal, since there are what passes, in American political rhetoric, for justifications for her not saying or doing enough in the time since.
____________________

Notes:

Jones, Jeffrey M. "Pelosi Gets Poor Marks for Handling Interrogation Matter". May 21, 2009. Gallup.com. Accessed May 21, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118564/Pelosi-Gets-Poor-Marks-Handling-Interrogations-Matter.aspx

Rasmussen Reports. "Pelosi and CIA—May 16, 17". May, 2009. Rasmussen.com. Accessed May 21, 2009. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/pt_survey_toplines/may_2009/toplines_pelosi_and_cia_may_16_17_2009

Yglesias, Matt. "GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire". The Daily Beast. May 18, 2009. TheDailyBeast.com. Accessed May 21, 2009. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/

Serwer, Adam. "The CIA Lie To Congress? It's Happened Before". Tapped. May 15, 2009. Prospect.org. Accessed May 21, 2009. http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=the_cia_lie_to_congress_its_ha

Well said as usual, Tiassa. Nancy isn't going anywhere.

My initial argument, per my thinking, stands: That is, what are these men going to say?

You're overlooking Bob Graham. The CIA has allegedly admitted its error, and it is welcome to refute Graham's telling. And you're welcome to bring us that refutation.

To borrow a phrase, it's your job to prove the point, or at least attempt to.

Really, it's not that tough a thing to do at this point: Provide evidence that the CIA has denied Graham's telling of the story.

Of course, if they haven't made that denial, I suppose it gets tougher for you.


What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking topic being discussed here.

Keep on saying that, Counte. Or maybe you're just preaching to the choir. Maybe everyone who isn't a Democrat or liberal believes that the veracity of records used to leverage a political attack is irrelevant to the credibility of the political attack.

A very simple logical statement: If the Agency's records are wrong, then the underlying claim against Pelosi loses credibility.

Or, to make it a little more complicated—and let me know where this loses you—if a person (e.g., Member of Congress or congressional aide) is supposed to have gained knowledge through a briefing, but was not actually present at said briefing, how is that person supposed to have gained that knowledge?

Now here's the tricky part: The claim is that certain people—in this case Pelosi—have lied about their knowledge of certain situations, the questions of what knowledge they had and when they had it is paramount to resolving the issue of what really happened.

Is that really so fucking hard to understand, Counte?


1. It is impossible for me to prove a negative.

It is unnecessary to prove a negative in this case. My point is that we have the assertion in Graham's own words. You can listen to him say those words.

Now, you chose to dispute (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258946&postcount=93) the fact that Graham said this. And it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention to our part of this discussion that such a position is untenable unless we presume that it wasn't really Bob Graham talking to Robert Siegel. Maybe the whole interview was an audio snip job by a resourceful sound engineer. Come on, Counte, why do I have to write the conspiracy theory for you? Surely you're capable of coming up with something—hell, anything—to back your assertion that those three points aren't proven, even if it's completely anemic and utterly laughable.


It is even more impossible for me to prove something regarding a Senator's schedule, which, as I already mentioned, has little to do with what we're discussing here.

Nobody has asked you to prove a damn thing about Graham's schedule. You claimed that three points of argument were not proven. I have provided proof of all of them. That's all there is to it. Everything else is just a dodge you're introducing to cover your ass.


2. Plus, if all the above is true, it shows the CIA admitting an error to a Congressmen. This is a far cry from "lying."

Well, you skipped over that point, so perhaps you just missed it:


Therein lies the question, Counte. Both sides of this battle say they want more documents released. The political positions describe certain potential outcomes:


Republican:

• Pelosi is lying through her teeth, and merely dragging out the inevitable.

Democratic:

• Pelosi is correct, and the GOP is simply making noise for the sake of hearing themselves talk.

Middle Ground:

• Pelosi is somewhat correct and generally exonerated, although the CIA didn't so much lie or mislead (is there really a difference?) as simply, once again, get its facts wrong.

To reiterate that "Middle Ground" possibility: Pelosi is somewhat correct and generally exonerated, although the CIA didn't so much lie or mislead as simply, once again, get its facts wrong


It also does NOT SPEAK to the substance of the briefs and what Pelosi knew -- both of which are essentially the topic of this thread. Have you forgotten that?

You seem to be having some trouble with the idea that the record of those briefings is part of what's at question here. Or perhaps we're all supposed to simply convict Pelosi and jump on the bandwagon. Hell, it's not like a lack of critical thinking ever got us into a war, or anything, right?

At this time, we cannot presume that the record of the substance of the briefings in question is accurate. Maybe you disagree, but this assertion that the question is irrelevant is about as stupid as can be.


Again, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

So the accuracy of the information at the heart of people's outrage is irrelevant to the situation at hand? The question (as framed by a Republican) is, specifically, whether Pelosi or the CIA is lying. More broadly, it is who is correct, or closest to. Therefore, the accuracy of the CIA's records seems quite relevant to the discussion, despite your repeated, childish demands to the other.


Yeah. She claims they are lying.

Actually, she responded to a question about whether the CIA lied to her by accusing them of misleading Congress. This could accuse an outright lie, or it could simply accuse shoddy record-keeping.


I don't buy it and neither does Panetta, and nothing you've shown here bolsters her claims and undermines his. . .

Which is why Panetta won't put his foot down and state unequivocally, for the record, that the CIA's records are accurate.


Yes. Plenty. You keep posting links to Pelosi saying they lied. The issue here is whether she is lying, so posting links to comments from her doesn't exactly bolster your case. I know what she has said. Everyone does. So what?

Perhaps you need to review the thread title, and the topic post, which are offered up by one of our Republican neighbors. Nobody is surprised that the only possible explanation, according to the anti-Pelosi crowd, is lying, and nobody is surprised at your focus on Pelosi or your attempt to whitewash the CIA.


Sorry. All of your posts are snobbish, verbose and generally on-topic for only a small percentage of the time.

And yours are blind and bigoted. You wanted proof of some fairly simple facts. Quit whining.


It was a claim made on a television show by a talking head. If you wanted me to take it seriously, you should have posted the actual material, as you did in the latter post.

As I said, I thought you were paying attention to the situation. And, as I said, I won't make that mistake again.


Then I at least would have considered it as something more than the palpitations of a biased commentator.

Yes, then you would consider the question of the veracity of the records at the heart of people's outrage irrelevant to the discussion.


Pay closer attention to the part that says "brief truthfully." It's pretty clear that he is denying he lied to Pelosi or anyone else.

Pay closer attention to the words, "our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate". Come on, Counte. With all your experience as a journalist, and with all your exposure to politicians, you ought to be able to recognize political non-denial when you see it.


Entirely reasonable, given it wasn't his tenure and he has no way of knowing how accurate the minutes are. Basically, he is avoiding making absolutist statements for legal reasons. He knows that if he says they are 100 percent accurate and then it's shown some staff wasn't there when it says he was, then he will be skewered by people like you and the entire substance of the message will be lost, which is NOBODY LIED.

And the alternative is incompetence, which, while a bit more acceptable morally and ethically, is still quite distressing.


These are calls for more information to be released. They do not deal with the veracity of the briefs or what Pelosi knew.

They do deal with the veracity of the information released because these requests demonstrate that the record released so far is insufficient to give an accurate picture of what actually happened. In political terms, there's not enough in the information we already have to hang Pelosi.


I posted lengthy legal summations from a case book. You're also ignoring all that I posted on issues where CIA has come clean to Congress. I gave numerous specific examples, which is a heck of a lot more than I can say for the crowd crowing about "lying". . .

Lengthy legal summations? Cha!

Although I was wrong in my review. There were nine posts to date, not eight.


No, they aren't.

Actually, they are. Saying they aren't over and over again won't change the outcome until you can show how they aren't.

Perhaps you're somehow confusing yourself, presuming much more than is actually there. You're dealing in what most people call "straw men", but I call it tilting windmills because it goes way beyond political calculation to tread in the realm of the delusional.


I agree totally, and yet you cite it and then expect me to take it seriously? That's not going to happen.

It's called perspective, Counte. At Sciforums, we don't trade exclusively in facts. There is a great deal of opinion expressed here. Sargent's appearance on Maddow offered one way to look at what's on the record. Yet, for some reason, you chose to dispute the record. Thus—


Again, if you had posted the source material to begin with I might have cared a little more about the points you were making ....

—I can only reiterate that I made the mistake of presuming you were actually paying attention to the situation you pretend such expertise about.

If you agree, totally, that shows like Countdown and Maddow are entertainment, then you really ought to try demonstrating that recognition, instead of assigning what isn't there in order to foster the latest round of your idiotic condescenscion.


I will bet money no such investigation ever occurs.

This is American politics; you're probably right. Still, it's what we have to work with.


Not beyond me, but not my purpose here.

The second part of that is obvious. The first, not so.


I was drug into this conversation simply because I got tired of reading ignorant comments from ignorant people about CIA.

Oh, poor you. Such a victim, aren't you, Counte?

(chortle!)


Thus, I began asserting substantive facts about the reality that underpins this situation.

And those substantive facts are where?


Of course, this didn't go down well with the usual crowd, who simply want to croak their biased opinions and be told how brilliant they are because the understand how to footnote, etc.

Perhaps if you didn't aim to pick fights, you wouldn't feel so victimized when people oblige.


Every time I've asked you anything, you leap to the conclusion that I am taking the piss or being spiteful.

Given that sarcasm and condescension are your primary modes of operation, I can't imagine how anyone would ever get that impression.


Is this in-between you publicly attacking him and calling into question his moderation because he doesn't say "how high?" whenever you file private grievances and demand -- your tiny fists beating -- action against those you perceive your enemies? How cute.

Come now, Counte. I'm sure you can do better than to implicate String in violating the confidence of the moderators and administration.


Unfortunately, my cynicism is a fairly constant personality trait.

And your personality is drowning in it. Shame about that.

If your cynicism wasn't so directional, perhaps you wouldn't end up embarrassing yourself so badly.


For the record, nothing. I still think Panetta is abysmal. My opinion of him has not changed, simply because he is sticking up for his organization and taking on a US Congresswoman who I, too, think is a "spineless douche." He could hardly do less. If he didn't stand up for his employees he would be laughed at in the halls.

You provide another argument why the CIA should be over and done with. If the truth is subordinate to loyalty, the Agency's mission is in deep shit. What Panetta needs to do is figure out what happened and, if it speaks poorly of the Agency, tell his employees, "It appears we fucked up. This is how we fucked up. This is how we're going to avoid fucking up in the future. It would be a shame if all your hard work was discredited because of fuck-ups like this."


I haven't bought the Republican line.

Yes, you have. Whitewashing the CIA is the primary indicator. It's one of those subtle things, I guess. That the CIA doesn't make a habit of lying to or misleading Congress doesn't mean it never happens.


And yes, this issue is largely unimportant when compared to the larger issue of what kind of system we should have for detainee interrogation. However, it would seem impossible to have a legitimate debate on that topic if one side of the fence is arguing a position it doesn't really believe in.

And presuming American politics so idiot-simple is another major indicator.


Yep. And I infrequently encounter it whenever I have to deal with you and your drug-addled responses.

Then stop staring at yourself in the mirror and start looking at the issues.

Before returning to the substance of this thread, I'd like to address what Tiassa linked to about the CIA and lying to Congress. Legacy of Ashes is a questionable book to cite, but I won't criticize it, as I have cited it myself, and generally it can be relied on to accurately portray the incidents it selectively chooses to present to its readers (the book, however, is in no way an accurate history of CIA). Like a great many authors trying to make difficult points about CIA, Serwer quotes things out of context and then grossly mis-characterizes them.

The link, for example, tells us that: "In the 1950s, Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, after being told by Senator Joseph McCarthy that tha CIA was 'neither sacrosanct nor immune from investigation,' began waging a "down and dirty covert operation on McCarthy" which included attempting to bug his office and feeding his staff with disinformation 'in order to discredit him.'"

While this is highly immoral and illegal (under the agency's charter), it is not an example of "lying to Congress." Rather it is an example of harassing a Congressman and fighting a dirty political battle. Dulles excelled at this, as did his opponent here. The only thing Dulles is on the record fudging about is Bay of Pigs (in his book, which I have read), and there was never any investigation into that worth noting.

The next example states: "Former CIA Director Richard Helms was convicted in 1977 of lying to Congress about the United States' role in overthrowing the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. Allende was succeeded by brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet."

Helms, who I have mentioned in this thread as an outlier, was convicted for more than that. His entire attitude toward Congress was questionable. It is just that this was all they could prove against him. For a better account that Weiner's, read Powers' The Man Who Kept Secrets.

Helms was the tipping point. CIA could largely ignore Congress before Church and the Helms conviction. Afterward, it could not, which is precisely what I argued earlier in this thread. CIA came under intense Congressional scrutiny in the mid-1970s and has stayed there ever since.

I also mentioned this: "In 1982, Congress passed a law prohibiting the administration from ousting the leftist regime in Nicaragua. The CIA kept trying to overthrow the Sandanistas. CIA Director Bill Casey testified frequently before oversight committees Congress about the agency's covert action plans, during which he was often misleading. 'Casey was guilty of Contempt of Congress from the day he was sworn in,' Robert Gates, former head of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense, told Weiner. When the Iran Contra Scandal began to break, Casey lied to Congress, denying that they had traded arms for hostages with Iran."

The wording here is problematic. Casey was notorious for misleading about CIA operations to Congress, but nearly every single time, he was called to account for it (see Bob Woodward's The Veil). The most famous example is him muttering (he had a habit of muttering) during a Congressional meeting about the mining of the harbor in Nicaragua and then claiming this amounted to a brief on the topic. Proving he ever "lied" is more difficult, and again, the oversight committees generally exposed whatever they wanted to about Casey and CIA in the 1980s whenever they got pissed off with either.

The Boland Amendment prohibited any funds for military or paramilitary operations. This was obviously violated, which is precisely why the Congress investigated Iran-Contra, and again, called the agency onto the carpet about it. Careers were ruined, people were fire and Bush 41 had to pardon a host of people to keep them from jail. I'm not sure where "lying" enters into it, though.

As for this: "On September 17, 2001, George Tenet told Congress that Iraq had provided al Qaeda with training in combat, bomb-making, and weapons of mass destruction. That information was based on a single source, the interrogation Ibn al-Shakh al Libi, who later recanted and whom we now know was tortured for that information. Tenet of course, hasn't recanted."

Tenet, who I don't have a lot of respect for, is often guilty of not saying anything. Here, he did not lie. He gave the intelligence he had. The fact it later became bogus does not mean he lied. It means the intelligence stunk. Most of the intelligence under Tenet stunk on this issue, but he never spoke up about it (with the exception of the Yellow cake incident) anywhere that I can see. Is that lying? I think he was giving his bosses what he had. What I have a problem with is what the Bush people -- and in particular Cheney and Rummy -- did with the intel after they heard it. The Yellow cake, for example, went back into the speech -- over the CIA's objection. . .

How about the 9/11 commission?

How about the oversight group that looked into the intelligence failures leading up to the Iraq war?

Those of kind of big ones. . . And since they failed to even discover the major malfeasances and criminal CIA doings we now (and then, some of us) know to have been long in progress as they were in full swing, you have a choice: the CIA has no record of honesty or cooperation when "called on the carpet" by Congress in recent years, or those little bits of Washington theatre don't fit the normal meaning of "called on the carpet". .

Tenet, who I don't have a lot of respect for, is often guilty of not saying anything. Here, he did not lie. He gave the intelligence he had. The fact it later became bogus does not mean he lied. The intelligence did not "later become bogus". It was rigged in advance (as we know from the Downing Street documents and much other evidence, now familiar to us all), and it was bogus from the day it was put together by someone (Office of Special Plans?) for Tenet to carry to Congress.

The issue is not whether she had the power to do anything, which she did, the issue is whether she lied about her knowledge of the program, which it appears she has. That's not an issue of much interest or relevance to anyone but Pelosi's local election opponents, the national wingnut attack squad looking for smokescreen material - and the defenders of W&Co, those firmly committed to preventing the discussion of such things as investigations and prosecutions for what have all the appearance of serious crimes.

Prosecution for what? Multiple and premeditated violation of treaties, laws, and oaths of office. Commission of odious crimes with no innocent excuse but panic, no practical motive but power's immediate needs, and no consequences but various disasters. Profiting therefrom.

I've said I think a truth commission or whatever you want to call it is a bad idea. And this episode demonstrates how what used to be a wet dream of the Democrats would actually blow up in their faces. Who gives a shit about "the Democrats"? Especially someone like Nancy (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/20/bipartisanship/) Pelosi (http://pelosiwatch.us/Pelosi-Record/Truth-About-Nancy-Pelosi.html), who has been long complicit in W&Co's treachery and degradations regardless of her torture involvements.

Some Dems would take a PR hit, others would not. Most of the jail time would be served by Republicans, because mostly they were committing the crimes.

I'd like to note Ice that you haven't answered the direct questions I put to you for the SECOND time. As usual, you think you can say whatever the hell you want, never have to back it up or produce any useful sources. Oh, wait. Check that. You did answer ONE question, presumably because it gave you a springboard to launch into another of your baseless rants.


And since they failed to even discover the major malfeasances and criminal CIA doings we now (and then, some of us) know to have been long in progress as they were in full swing, you have a choice: the CIA has no record of honesty or cooperation when "called on the carpet" by Congress in recent years, or those little bits of Washington theatre don't fit the normal meaning of "called on the carpet". .

What criminal CIA doings?

You keep asserting there are some, then can never produce descriptions or documentation of just what the fuck it is that you are talking about. As String as noted, your sole contribution to this thread has and continues to be you stating your opinions, I will add unsubstantiated and silly opinions, as facts. This is laughable.


The intelligence did not "later become bogus". It was rigged in advance (as we know from the Downing Street documents and much other evidence, now familiar to us all), and it was bogus from the day it was put together by someone (Office of Special Plans?) for Tenet to carry to Congress.

Ibn al-Shakh al Libi was a high profile captive. It is not reasonable to think that what he told interrogators would not be passed on by the DCI to the president, etc. The fact that the White House chose to take the raw reports from one man and inflate them says more about the White House than it does Tenet, who I am not really going to waste too much energy defending. Tenet served his masters a little too well, but I don't think he ever just fucking LIED. I think he tried to prove what they wanted him to prove, and went after the intelligence they wanted, which is pretty much what former DDI Paul Pillar says in his review of the pre-war intelligence in his CFR article. You should read it.

Furthermore, you cannot take the Downing Street memorandum and use it to broad-brush all the pre-War intelligence on Iraq, because the memos, which I read a few years back, do not get into specifics about what intelligence may have been slanted. The memos also don't say GEORGE TENET lied. In fact, they don't say anything about him at all. So positing that they bolster your inane argument about Tenet is pure fantasy. Al libi said what he said. Tenet passed it along. The fact he was lying or may have been beaten into saying those things is not confirmation of what you claim, it is only confirmation that information from al Libi's interrogation, which, by the way, was hardly the linchpin for the war, was misused.



That's not an issue of much interest or relevance to anyone but Pelosi's local election opponents, the national wingnut attack squad looking for smokescreen material - and the defenders of W&Co, those firmly committed to preventing the discussion of such things as investigations and prosecutions for what have all the appearance of serious crimes.

If it doesn't interest you, then I suggest you piss off to some other thread. Or to put it more politely: Why the fuck are you wasting your time and my bandwidth arguing about things you admit to not caring about?

And you keep talking about crimes, but I have yet to see what laws you think were actually broken. That is, the people who did all this fully believed they complied with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which was the law of the land at the time. Admittedly, I think the DOJ opinions were specifically constructed to give the guys on the ground wiggleroom, but the guys on the ground can hardly be prosecuted for that. They aren't lawyers. You want to prosecute Bush, the NSC and the DOJ? Good luck with that. See where it ends. . .


Multiple and premeditated violation of treaties,

What treaties?


laws,

What laws?


and oaths of office.

What oaths of office?


Commission of odious crimes with no innocent excuse but panic,

I'm sorry is that a crime?


no practical motive but power's immediate needs,

And you know this and can prove it how?


and no consequences but various disasters.

What disasters?


Profiting therefrom.

Who profited from the torture?

You see, Ice?

At some point, you will have to explain all this and give us more than your chest-thumping and your anger and your opinions. What you wrote reads like rage, with little actual thought behind it. I doubt you can prove much of it, or even construct a semblance of an argument that makes it seem palatable to reason and thought.


Who gives a shit about "the Democrats"? Especially someone like Nancy (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/20/bipartisanship/) Pelosi (http://pelosiwatch.us/Pelosi-Record/Truth-About-Nancy-Pelosi.html), who has been long complicit in W&Co's treachery and degradations regardless of her torture involvements.

Well, Spider apparently cares. PJ cares. So, too, does Tiassa, who probably wore his fingers out typing that nonsensical diatribe above. I've said I care, too. This is the Speaker of the House. She's kind of a national leader and all.

1) It's impossible to discover that from these documents.

How the hell can you say that? Have you studied the CIA? Are you familiar with this entire senario enough to make such a blatant statement. If so, based upon what research do you come to this conclusion. What history of personal research can you site that leads you to this understanding? Up until now you've made statements (like the above) and backed it up with nothing at all other than your good word.

The word "impossible" carries the with it a very blatant understanding that YOU know for certain this thing. How, pray tell, do you come to make such a statement?

~String

I see you still haven't responded to this post, Ice, with anything other than your lengthy train of thought.

Interesting.

~String

Latest update is that Pelosi won't talk about it anymore. I guess she decided that she wasn't going to bumble through any more press conferences.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1

I see you still haven't responded to this post, Ice, with anything other than your lengthy train of thought. Still haven't provided you with links on the frequent blueness of the sky, either. I am behind.

It's laundry day today. I'll catch up with you on the sky thing in a couple of weeks - the impossibility of your being able to evaluate such redactions from such documents, and the ridiculousness of any expectation of getting "the whole story" from them, seems obvious enough to let slide until the more serious questions have been dealt with.

What criminal CIA doings?

You keep asserting there are some, then can never produce descriptions or documentation of just what the fuck it is that you are talking about. Once again in the long string of replies to you, several of the former ones thoroughly documented right in front of your eyes and never again by me as you know, picking an obvious couple of the many: CIA involvements in the renditions program, the assassination program, and the torture program in various US prisons, were illegal under US, International, and various involved States', law. These have been described and documented in a large number and wide variety of news media, for many years now (or months, recently with the assassination operation reporting to Cheney's office). The Spanish courts have issued warrants for the arrest of a half dozen CIA agents, for example - that made the front page of most reputable newspapers not too long ago. You claim to be a professional journalist and university lecturer, and although you are the only pro journalist or college professor I have ever seen use "nadir" to mean its opposite in a political setting, I still think you have some passing acquaintance with actual news sources in whatever life you really live. So your claims of unfamiliarity with these matters are not believable, even if I hadn't linked and sourced so many times in the past.


At some point, you will have to explain all this I am not a psychiatrist. I have no idea what your problem is, and no wish to feed it at any inconvenience to myself.

Still haven't provided you with links on the frequent blueness of the sky, either. I am behind.

It's laundry day today. I'll catch up with you on the sky thing in a couple of weeks - the impossibility of your being able to evaluate such redactions from such documents, and the ridiculousness of any expectation of getting "the whole story" from them, seems obvious enough to let slide until the more serious questions have been dealt with.

I'm sure it feels good fooling yourself into comparing your nebulous statements with my ability to look out the window and verify the color of the sky, but they aren't. You made no claim that is just that obvious. And while I have come to the conclusion that in your twisted mind whatever you deem as obvious must also be to everybody else (even when it involves covert operations of the CIA and documents NEITHER of us have ever seen), it really doesn't help your credibility to make statements that cannot be backed up.

So, no, it isn't obvious. What is obvious is that you have absolutely no clue what your talking about, are totally mis-informed and desperately need to feel smart by making up little tidbits of information and then declaring them to be self evedent maxims. Sorry, Ice, that doesn't pass the smell test.

You made the statements, now back it up (don't worry about the sky part, because unlike you, I have enough of an education to know exactly what color it is, plus just enough MORE to understand the scientific method and how it works).

But we know where this will go: you'll pussy out of the debate with some statement that whatever you state is obvious and it's up to me to just come to that understanding.

~String

What is obvious is that you have absolutely no clue what your talking about,
I know better than to treat any demand that I "prove" a negative as other than rhetorical thuggery or a joke.

Door number two, out of civility. Something you and Count need lessons in, but I'm not your mother either. Gambit refused anyway, as usual.

This whole thing started as a juvenile and unimaginative conspiracy theory based on silly assertions by the ignorant and politically malign. Suddenly I'm the one who is supposed to know what they're talking about? All I'm talking about is the documents we have right in front of us all, the ones so heavily redacted. You can't learn anything from them that they can't have in them, and "the whole story" is one of those things.

If you are going to insist that you can magically gain the ability to learn "the whole story" from those documents, from some information they might contain, I am going to leave you to the empty assertion. I can't think of a thing you can learn from them in any confidence with any relevance to your conspiracy theory; meanwhile, I can think of (and listed) a half dozen reasons for the redactions (both favorable and unfavorable to Obama), and the obvious source and motive of the whole approach (the usual suspects nationally, harassing and trashing the Obama administration) is by now simply boring;

but have fun building your little conspiracy mountains in your little righty sandbox if you enjoy the exercise.

I know better than to treat any demand that I "prove" a negative as other than rhetorical thuggery or a joke.

Door number two, out of civility. Something you and Count need lessons in, but I'm not your mother either. Gambit refused anyway, as usual.

This whole thing started as a juvenile and unimaginative conspiracy theory based on silly assertions by the ignorant and politically malign. Suddenly I'm the one who is supposed to know what they're talking about? All I'm talking about is the documents we have right in front of us all, the ones so heavily redacted. You can't learn anything from them that they can't have in them, and "the whole story" is one of those things.

If you are going to insist that you can magically gain the ability to learn "the whole story" from those documents, from some information they might contain, I am going to leave you to the empty assertion. I can't think of a thing you can learn from them in any confidence with any relevance to your conspiracy theory; meanwhile, I can think of (and listed) a half dozen reasons for the redactions (both favorable and unfavorable to Obama), and the obvious source and motive of the whole approach (the usual suspects nationally, harassing and trashing the Obama administration) is by now simply boring;

but have fun building your little conspiracy mountains in your little righty sandbox if you enjoy the exercise.

Isn't that what you do all the time? ""prove" a negative" or demand that some one else do so.

I know better than to treat any demand that I "prove" a negative as other than rhetorical thuggery or a joke.

Uh. What are you talking about? I never asked you to prove a negative. Shit, I'm just having trouble getting you to prove a goddamned positive! One baby step at a time! I asked you to prove this statement: "You have no way of evaluating or verifying anything redacted in those reports, or providing them with meaningful context, much of which is known to have been destroyed. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2258388&postcount=86)"

No need to prove a negative, Ice, just back up your claims with something concrete. Let me boil this down for you, you made these assertions:
There's no way to evaluate the information in redacted reports (here's a clue: READ THEM, that's generally the best way to "evaluate them")
Much of the information has been destroyed (You were there, right? Saw some video footage of the paper shredders, right? Something? Anything!)


There's no need to prove a negative here, just back up your statements, something you have NEVER done with even the smallest shread of evidence. Hence, it's logical to assume that you are clueless and totally uneducated. Your only recourse is rhetorical tricks in order to avoid looking like a total ignorant fool.

So, I guess, far be it from us to actually expect you to use any intellect and support your claims.


This whole thing started as a juvenile and unimaginative conspiracy theory based on silly assertions by the ignorant and politically malign.

Nice try. More fluff. Nothing you just said has any relevance to the discussion at hand. But it sure sounds pretty! This is your usual game and it's actually funny. The interesting thing is, you keep insisting (with zero support) that releasing the currently un-redacted information will prove nothing, which is about as idiotic as stating that understanding why Mr. X shot his wife is unimportant in understanding the crime.

Here's a clue Ice: All I have to do is read the documents to make an evaluation of what's in them. If the information is declassified and it shows that a city was saved because of information extracted from KSM, then the American public will soften its view of waterboarding. That's just something the left fears. Better to keep the information secret and maintain the lie that "nothing can be gained from the CIA's files on the waterboardings."


All I'm talking about is the documents we have right in front of us all, the ones so heavily redacted. You can't learn anything from them that they can't have in them, and "the whole story" is one of those things.

Well, since you haven't read the documents, and certainly haven't read the blacked out sections, it's not possible for you to have a clue what you're talking about. Nice try though.


I can't think of a thing you can learn from them in any confidence with any relevance to your conspiracy theory

Well, here's the problem Ice: You're not thinking. You're battling furiously to prove something you have no clue about. And whatever "conspiracy theory" you're talking about, you might want to clue us all into. It's another of your rhetorical inventions, as yet, unproven.


(the usual suspects nationally, harassing and trashing the Obama administration)

Well, since I'm (barring this one issue) pretty happy with what Obama's doing (including ending waterboarding, ending don't ask don't tell, re-instating the military tribunals, closing Gitmo and a host of other policies), I guess your little rant there doesn't apply to me.


but have fun building your little conspiracy mountains in your little righty sandbox if you enjoy the exercise.

Wait, that's it? You still haven't backed up a word you've said. Not one word of it. You can't even tell me what "conspiracy theory" you're talking about. No links to wherever you got your info? No books? No press releases? Wow... that was the best cop-out I've seen from you since you confused Iran-Contra and the 79' Iran Hostage Crisis.

~String

Once again in the long string of replies to you, several of the former ones thoroughly documented right in front of your eyes and never again by me as you know, picking an obvious couple of the many: CIA involvements in the renditions program, the assassination program, and the torture program in various US prisons, were illegal under US, International, and various involved States', law.

I'm sorry, but you are acting like a complete and utter fool.

I have never alleged the CIA does not break the law. That would be idiotic, as the entire purpose of the organization IS to break the laws of other countries. You cannot blackmail people, entice them to commit treason, break into buildings, steal information and generally do everything the agency is LEGALLY charged with doing without breaking the laws of other countries. So to sit here and posit this is what we are talking about is ludicrous.

What matters, and what we've been discussing (in case you really are that daft), is whether the CIA has broken American laws. You have suggested as much, and I have demanded proof. So far, we've see NOTHING. And now we get this specious post about blue skies and activities that have nothing to do with your allegations (unless you completely are bonkers).

What's even more ridiculous is that I have repeatedly asked you specific questions to back up your specific claims (I've lost count of how many times now). You refuse to answer questions, defaulting instead to your usual outrage and indignation. Either you are dense, unable to back anything up or are just a plain coward. After reading your responses to String ("gambit refused"), I think it's a mixture of the last two.

Regardless, you continue to waste everyone's time by peddling nonsense. Tiassa at least provides reasons and sources for his ill-thinking (and for that I am grateful). You don't even do us the courtesy. We're just all supposed to bow before you intellect . . . or something. The problem is you've run head into a subject that some people obviously know a lot more about than you do. That must sting, I'm sure. But instead of treading carefully, as a prudent person would, you wade in with allegations, then revert to your usual bag of tricks (posts that sound smart but are about little or nothing -- beyond arguing about arguing). "Gambit refused," right?

We can, however, quite easily deal with the few nuggets of intellectual simplicity you offer, and in doing so, expose your foolishness for what it is:


renditions program,

Renditions are not illegal under US law. Look it up.

The legal Assertion of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction is upheld in numerous Supreme Court cases. For a relevant example see U.S. v. Yousef.


the assassination program,

All of the agency's assassination plots (and there were only a handful) were outlined in the Church Committee's report.

Assassination was banned at that time, by executive order, and became illegal for the agency to engage in (every president has subsequently endorsed the order). If you can find one case where it has attempted one since, I'd be happy to see it, because I've never come across the like. Bill Clinton was famously unsure whether he could legally kill bin Laden with a drone in the late 1990s -- precisely because the CIA does not try to bump people off (despite the fantasies in your head). In fact, if we go back to the days when it WAS trying such tactics, it was never very good at doing it (see the Castro bungling). So I'm curious what "program" are you speaking about?


the torture program in various US prisons,

What torture program in "various US prisons" are you speaking about? The water-boarding being addressed in this thread was not a standard in place in Gitmo or anywhere else.


International, and various involved States', law

As I already stated, the CIA does not have to obey either of the above, and indeed could not exist if it did.


The Spanish courts have issued warrants for the arrest of a half dozen CIA agents, for example - that made the front page of most reputable newspapers not too long ago. You claim to be a professional journalist and university lecturer, and although you are the only pro journalist or college professor I have ever seen use "nadir" to mean its opposite in a political setting, I still think you have some passing acquaintance with actual news sources in whatever life you really live. So your claims of unfamiliarity with these matters are not believable, even if I hadn't linked and sourced so many times in the past.

Wow.

Spanish Courts.

There are CIA NOCs in jail in France, as we speak, and I personally know a former, high-level CIA operator who can never travel to Russia. What, if anything, does this tell us? Nothing that we shouldn't already know and that I haven't posted here. The CIA breaks laws overseas and gets into trouble all the time. So what? We're talking about whether the CIA lied to Congress and whether it broke American laws (that's what it can get in trouble for and that's what all the talk about being called onto the carpet is about). And in this discussion you've made several boneheaded claims that we are all still waiting to see a scintilla of evidence for.


I am not a psychiatrist. I have no idea what your problem is, and no wish to feed it at any inconvenience to myself.

My problem is simple and has entirely to do with your bullshit.

To put the matter more plainly, I tire of reading posts where you assert opinion as facts. I especially tire of reading posts where you assert opinions that can easily be demonstrated as foolish or wrongheaded as facts. But the phrase here that you chose to quote of mine had nothing to do with that and everything to do with asking you, yet again, to provide some kind of foundation for the malarkey you fill this website with.

Seriously, why is it when people ask you simple questions you feel like you don't have to answer? As of yet, despite the prompting of two people, you've failed to account for most of what you have said in this thread. Why is that? Is it that you're still trying to work out the difference between the Embassy hostages of 1979 and Iran/Contra? That would at least explain why your intellect is elsewhere . . .