US News
Bush under fire for destroyed CIA interrogation tapes (Roundup)
Dec 8, 2007, 2:46 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Obama gets reports on security failings in Detroit plot
- Obama vows action; al-Qaeda claims flight scare credit
- Nigerian terrorist suspect charged, Yemen ties probed
- Dutch, British airports beef up security after US airliner incident
- Moment of silence begins 7th annual commemoration of 9/11
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. PREVIEW: Stars, fans and cameras set for Whitney Houston's funeral
- 2. Hollywood's sad story: Stars ruined by prescription drugs
- 3. Actress Susan Sarandon funds table tennis for New York schools
- 4. Romney lags behind a surging Santorum in US polls
- 5. Whitney Houston to be buried Saturday in small family funeral
Older Talkback
page: 1
think he is scared?
that doesn't mean a thing to him. under fire .lol
It would lead to the identification of agents... put them and their families at risk????
What a load of codswallop. If the CIA can't hide 2 torturers in a country of over 300 million people and 350 million square miles, then maybe they aren't as good at the spy business as they want us to believe.
More likely, by destroying the tapes, they can't be identified in a proper court of law. This saves Bushwhacker from a lot of embarrassment and tough questions. But there are still going to be a lot of tough questions. The Whitewhorehouse is assisting in the internal review? More likely looking for more stuff to destroy. Doesn't this sound a lot like Richard Nixon and his tapes? He was another Republican warmonger, thief and liar.
www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/cia.videotapes/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush 'has no recollection' of videotapes of CIA interrogations of some al Qaeda suspects or of plans to destroy the tapes, a White House spokeswoman said.
'I spoke to the president this morning about this,' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. 'He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning.'
The vice president learned about the tapes and their destruction at the same time, another administration official told CNN.
Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, said that was 'stretching credulity.'
(B U l l S H i t)
What I find interesting is the timing. This follows immediately on the heels of the release of their boneheaded report on Iran's nuclear activities. My suspicions would be that this was likely planned in advance before the release of the Iran report in order to take the media's attention off that before the damage can be undone.
Obviously the democratic Congress, in its zeal to sling mud against the GOP during the campaigning, has blinded itself to the critical importance of the propaganda aspect of the war. And the CIA? I suppose they they just plain may not know any better. Too many people in high positions that have been educated way beyond their intelligence.
This will likely be downplayed to a trivial issue before it's finished. Not much different than the Clinton administration letting Sandy Berger break into the pentagon and destroy the classified reports implicating Bill Clinton in his crimes and misconduct in the White House.
Both the republican and democratic parties need complete overhauls in regard to integrity and character issues, but sadly, neither party is offering any hope of that in the next election with their present candidates.
RE: ' ... Sandy Berger break into the pentagon and destroy the classified reports implicating Bill Clinton in his crimes and misconduct in the White House.'
=============
Provide a Google link as to Berger covering up any 'crime' committed by Clinton.
www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/22170
Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:
Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million
Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million
Passenger Profiling: $10 million
Screener Training: $5.3 million
Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million
Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million
Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million
Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million
Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million
Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million
Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million
Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million
Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million
Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million
Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million
Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million
Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million
Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million
Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million
Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million
Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million
Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, 'threat meetings' were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.
www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/index.html
Congress passes anti-terrorism bill
April 18, 1996
Web posted at: 6:30 p.m. EDT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress on Thursday passed a compromise bill boosting the ability of law enforcement authorities to fight domestic terrorism, just one day before the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing.
The House voted, 293-133, to send the anti-terrorism bill to President Clinton, who has indicated that he will sign it after he returns from his overseas trip next week.
The measure, which the Senate passed overwhelmingly Wednesday evening, is a watered-down version of the White House's proposal. The Clinton administration has been critical of the bill, calling it too weak.
The original House bill, passed last month, had deleted many of the Senate's anti-terrorism provisions because of lawmakers' concerns about increasing federal law enforcement powers. Some of those provisions were restored in the compromise bill.
The bill imposes limits on federal appeals by death row inmates and other prisoners and makes the death penalty available in some international terrorism cases and in cases where a federal employee is killed on duty.
The bill 'has some very effective tools that we can use in our efforts to combat terrorism,' Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday.
Keep watch and pray. You see 8 people died in Omaha because the system of government did not do its job from the beginning.
22 more people in Iraq died because of the same reasons.
We do not need money, we do not sell books, we do not collect funds from those that do not wish to openly contribute, we have our own Army, we have our own intelligence, we do need a fancy website to tell others we are here, we do not need the mainstream media to promote us, for we come from them and from government and from Army, and from Business, and we are tired of the corruption and death and greed and the suffering of the American people who just want to have a nice Christmas and be happy. Just look at the internet and see. The American Republic has already fired its first shot, and you people were too busy watching TV or doing something else to even notice, but those that are the powers that be heard it loud and clear, and they hope to keep it quiet from you all. But, we will fire another...
Humanity will overcome technology in the end!
nixon did nothing wrong so it seems.
little bush can get away with murder...which he is doing.
Sounds like SP4 is up and running - of the mouth that is!!
' we do need a fancy website to tell others we are here, '
Then shut up.
...I just don't see any posts of mine above...
The CIA...aren't these the same guys who say Iran is no longer working on the bomb...?
'Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on.'
This is another one of your LIES. The Clinton administration had 4 documented chances to kill bin Laden and they DECIDED NOT TO each time. Even after bin Laden had blown up our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania.
The 9/11 attacks were conceived, planned, put in to place and all but completed on Clinton's watch.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
'But that also raises one enormous question: If the U.S. government had bin Laden and the camps in its sights in real time, why was no action taken against them?
“We were not prepared to take the military action necessary,” said retired Gen. Wayne Downing, who ran counter-terror efforts for the current Bush administration and is now an NBC analyst.
Gary Schroen, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, says the White House required the CIA to attempt to capture bin Laden alive, rather than kill him.
What impact did the wording of the orders have on the CIA’s ability to get bin Laden? “It reduced the odds from, say, a 50 percent chance down to, say, 25 percent chance that we were going to be able to get him,” said Schroen.
A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.
Bob Kerry, a former senator and current 9/11 commission member, said, “The most important thing the Clinton administration could have done would have been for the president, either himself or by going to Congress, asking for a congressional declaration to declare war on al-Qaida, a military-political organization that had declared war on us.”
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060412-us-obl.htm
U.S. government reports suggest that the United States lost a clear opportunity to kill bin Laden because he was too close to U.A.E. officials traveling in his entourage – officials Clinton security adviser Richard Clarke may have thought were too important to harm.
On Feb. 8, 1999, the Pentagon and the CIA were preparing a military strike on a luxury hunting camp in the desert south of Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden had been sighted.
There were problems, however.
Satellite imagery revealed the presence of a military aircraft belonging to the U.A.E., and 'policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with bin Laden or close by,' according to the 9/11 Commission report.
Who were these U.S. 'policymakers' mentioned in the 9/11 report who thwarted the opportunity to kill one of the world's most wanted men?'
“We should have had strike forces prepared to go in and react to this intelligence, certainly cruise missiles — either air- or sea-launched — very, very accurate, could have gone in and hit those targets,” Downing added.
'Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion.'
Consider that every last red cent of that was flushed down the toilet because we had a president who didn't realize that we were at war with a devious enemy who simply could not be pulled over and arrested.
The choice you obviously want us to make is to turn our own society in to a police state in stead of fighting them on their own territory. We are in a war, one that has been declared on US. A major reason we have lost as many people as we have is because of the Clinton administration's complete refusal to see that obvious fact. Be prepared to be REMINDED of that closer to November.
Oh, you can shove your garbage from 'truthout.org' in the same hole as the garbage you have shoved from Kos and common dreams, idiot.
On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for stealing classified documents in October 2003, by removing them from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said[13] Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003.
When initially questioned by reporters, Berger claimed it was accidental that he put the top-secret copies in his attache-case and handwritten notes in his jacket and pants pockets. He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors. Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing.[14] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.
Berger eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material on April 1, 2005. Under a plea agreement, U.S. attorneys recommended a fine of $10,000 and a loss of security clearance for three years. However, on September 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson increased the fine to $50,000 at Berger's sentencing. Robinson stated, 'The court finds the fine [recommended by government prosecutors] is inadequate because it doesn't reflect the seriousness of the offense.'[15] Berger was also ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service.[16]
Critics suggest Berger destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record. Public statements to this effect have been made by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh,[17] former Clinton campaign advisor Dick Morris,[18] USA Today reporter Jack Kelley,[19] multiple times by Fox News correspondent John Gibson (the last as recently as December 2006[20]), and former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Republican-Illinois), who said: 'What information could be so embarrassing that a man with decades of experience in handling classified documents would risk being caught pilfering our nation's most sensitive secrets?'[21]
'...it's pizza nahght Hirry....god ah miss beer when we have this stuff, boyh! Trah the meat lovahs special Hirry...yep, Laura says it's gonna stop mah heart....funny too, cause most o you alls sychophantic constituants don't think ah have one...eh, eh...
'....yeah, a damn shame aboout thim tapes Hirry....ol Dick an I used t watch em an do shots in th basement....well,... Dick did, ah jes watched...
'Haell nooo senatah, we din't have no recollection of thim tapes...or at least that'll be the oo ficial version..'
'...Hirry....hirry....boyh, git a hold o y'sef....it ain't no big thing...a little watah on th haed...haell boyh...they doo this ta navy seals fer trainin all th tahme...an none o thim dieah...well...most o th tahme anyways...'
'...n Hirry, fergit thim tapes...they's gone an, believe me boyh...they ain't comin back...who do ah look lahke...Dick Nixon...do ya think they're be hahnd mah desk boyh...s' lets git on with business heah.
' Senatah...Congriss's got a 20% approval ratin Hirry...jeesusah cheeerahst boyh!...thats less thin me! Goddam Hirry...th war is more pop u larr thin congriss Hirry....it's lahke y' worse tin mah bowlin score!...pretty soon...Mikey Moore's gonna make movies of you Hirry...!
'n' boyh...I cin hep ya, but ya gotta dee liver. Ah don't need to bundles from sum un named Kim Chi or Liu or sumpin...well..not anymore anyways...Ol Karls gone now...but Hirry....ya gotta git that Iraq fundin done bah Xmas, or I'll lay off all thim civilian workers at th Pentagon, an spend thire paychecks fer bullets boyh! I ain't kiddin Hirry...ol GW ain't gonna be th one ta unfund th war boyh...s' git in thire an git a deal, boyh!
'Ya git ol Teddy sh-t face drunk, or threaten ta oout one o thim gay sneatahs we seem ta have a lot of...preferrably ah demcrat fer a change...tell ol Joe Biden he's doin reel well in his run...whatevah, but git er done Hirry!'
' Hirry...put on thit red suit an git out thim Reindeer boyh, ya gotta dee livah by midnahght the 24th boyh! Jes git out thire and Ho ho ho fer me Hirry...I'll hep ya too! I'll git ya sum global warmin funds an sum haghwiy dollahs ya lahke s'much boyh, let thim gays marry..well, not in Texas, but everwhire else...'
'Mirry Xmas Hirry, an t all a g nahght! Tahke sum o thit pizza fer Teddy, an here's sum 12 yeer old scotch fer him ta wash it doown with!'
On December 20, 2006, more than a year after Berger pleaded guilty and was sentenced, a report issued by the archives inspector detailed how Berger had perpetrated the crime. Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. 'In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building).' Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[25][26]
The report also stated 'There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents.' In the end, according to the report, '[Mr. Berger] substituted his sense of sensitivity instead of thinking of classification' in deciding to remove the documents.[27]
Sandy Berger and the Clinton Cover-Up - Why It Matters
By Ronald A. Cass
On May 17th, Sandy Berger, President Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, voluntarily gave up his law license and with it the right to practice law. That is a stunning move for an accomplished lawyer, one of the nation's most influential public officials. Someone should take note. In fact, everyone should.
Berger previously entered a deal with the Department of Justice after he was caught stealing and destroying highly sensitive classified material regarding the Clinton Administration's handling of terrorism issues. That deal allowed him to avoid jail time, pay a modest fine, and keep his law license. It also allowed him to avoid full explanation of what he had taken and why he had taken it.
What information was worth risking his reputation, his career, and his freedom to keep hidden? And who was he risking that for?
Recently, the Board of the DC Bar, which had granted Berger his license, began asking those questions. There was only one way to stop that investigation, to keep from answering questions about what he did and why he did it, to keep the Bar from questioning his colleagues in the Clinton Administration about what had been in the documents Berger destroyed.
Berger took that step, surrendering his license, and stopping the investigation.
Ordinarily, anyone who has spent the time, effort, and money needed to master one of the 'learned professions' fights with the utmost determination to keep his license. That is not merely a ticket to practice your chosen profession - it is also a badge of honor and accomplishment. Ask any doctor or lawyer, any architect or CPA, any professional at all, what it means to give that up.
That Berger didn't fight speaks volumes.
*******
President Clinton designated Berger as his representative to the 9/11 Commission and related hearings, which gave Berger special access to highly classified documents in the National Archives relating to the Clinton Administration's handling of al-Qaeda and similar terror threats. Berger got around rules requiring that the documents only be reviewed with Archives' employees present, purposefully stole documents, destroyed them, and lied about it all. When caught, he first blamed Archives employees for misplacing the documents, then admitted having taken them inadvertently (this is the point at which he cut the plea deal), and finally acknowledged what was obvious from the facts that were emerging - he intentionally removed and destroyed documents.
Justice Department officials who investigated the missing documents initially were persuaded that Berger must, as he claimed, have taken documents by mistake and then destroyed them to avoid having sensitive material in his possession. The plea agreement was based on the assumption that Berger was mishandling classified material - not manhandling it.
Now, however, it is clear that there was nothing innocent or inadvertent in Berger's conduct. He has something to hide and, whatever it is, he was terrified that at least some part of it would come out of a non-criminal hearing before the Bar. With no possible criminal charges to face, he could not have claimed a right against self-incrimination. He could no longer get away with saying that he took documents accidentally, took them only to prepare for up-coming hearings (why, then, take five copies of one memo?), or didn't intend to destroy them. He would, in other words, have had to say more than he has so far.
*******
We don't know with any certainty what is missing, which papers exactly are gone, or what notes - and whose notes - may have been on them. Berger's lawyer asserted that the 9/11 Commission had copies of all the material Berger stole and destroyed. But if that is so, why would Berger risk so much to destroy it and be so keen today on avoiding any real inquiry into what he did?
Berger had access to Archives documents that could be critical to understanding what information the Clinton Administration had, what options it considered, and what decisions it took on these sensitive subjects. In addition to primary documents, Berger had access to copies, and the only plausible reason for taking five copies of a single memo is that some had original notes on them from key officials, maybe from Berger or President Clinton.
For Berger to risk jail and disgrace, to then give up the right to practice his profession merely in order to avoid having to answer questions, he must be hiding something important. And if it is that important to him, it is also important to us.
The most likely explanation is that the material Berger destroyed points to a terrible mistake by Berger himself, by President Clinton, or by both. In dealing with al-Qaeda, did they overlook a critical piece of information or miss a chance to stop 9/11? Did the Administration's failure to take a more aggressive posture encourage al-Qaeda's later attacks?
When Fox News' Chris Wallace raised the possibility that Clinton's Administration might have done something more to prevent 9/11, Bill Clinton went into an inexplicable rage on national television. Wallace touched a nerve. So did the DC Bar.
Knowing what information Berger destroyed also might alter views of the current Bush Administration. Was the early support from both Bill and Hillary Clinton for going to war against Saddam based on something we don't know yet that was available to insiders in the Clinton Administration? Was it something that could come back to haunt Hillary and ruin her chances of winning Bill's third term?
Whatever it was, it's likely that what Berger destroyed could have helped us understand what led to the most tragic terror attack in our nation's history and perhaps also help us decide what course - and what Chief Executive - will best to protect our future. The fact that Berger has been able to avoid revealing that information is a scandal of its own.
The only person who knows what information was lost is Sandy Berger. And he isn't talking.
*******
What is at stake is more than what we think and say about Sandy Berger. It is more than the legacy of Bill Clinton and of George W. Bush. It is more than the prospects for Hillary Clinton becoming the Democrats' presidential nominee and ultimately the President. All of these, of course, are wrapped up in this story.
Our security and vitality of the rule of law in America are at stake as well. That should concern all whose lives and loved ones may be at risk if our nation follows the wrong path, not knowing everything that should inform our judgments. It should concern all who respect the law, all who have labored as lawyers and judges, as honorable government officials and voices for even-handed justice.
Sadly, this story doesn't interest the Justice Department, which disposed of the criminal charges leniently based in part on false information from Berger. When faced with the fact that Berger had access to original documents on two occasions before Archives' employees became suspicious enough to start marking documents, the Justice Department declared with confidence that no documents had been taken - they asked Berger if he had taken anything during those visits, he said no, and they let the matter rest.
The story doesn't interest the Democrats in Congress, who prefer spending time investigating why eight political-level appointees were fired - a misstep by the Bush Justice Department that provides more promising political fodder than one that might point back to the Clintons.
The Sandy Berger story doesn't interest the mainstream news media, probably for the same reason. The media elites, so keen in other settings on the people's right to know, don't want to know about this. Maybe if this story involved a Karl instead of a Sandy . . .
Maybe some day someone will step back and wonder why a successful lawyer like Berger would take so drastic a step as surrendering his law license just to evade questions. Someone will ask what could have been so terrible that it was worth that price to keep it hidden. Someone will decide that it's important to know what Mr. Berger is hiding.
Because, in truth, it could affect us all.
Ronald A. Cass is Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and Author of “The Rule of Law in America'.
Bush Admin Told CIA Not to Destroy Tapes
The New York Times is now reporting that CIA officials were advised not to destroy videotapes of terrorist interrogations:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.
The chief of the agency’s clandestine service [Jose A. Rodriguez Jr.] nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.
...seem to have lot's to discuss...I'll be out for a while...but back soon...
'...ah Sahndee Bergarah, mahn with lahge pahnts...maka rahge bundro fo Hirrary an send eet tooo heah friends...brow job fo beiro too, unnastan?'
Caio!
RE:
'Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on.'
This is another one of your LIES. The Clinton administration had 4 documented chances to kill bin Laden and they DECIDED NOT TO each time. Even after bin Laden had blown up our embassy in Kenya and Tanzania.
==============================================
What a damned liar you are!
I'M addressing LEGISLATION passed by Congress and watered down based on what Clinton proposed.
YOU'RE talking about attacks for which terrorists were apprehended and punished.
TWO SEPARATE TOPICS, JERK!!!
Here's an entire Snopes link on 'urban legends' covering the facts on what Clinton's admin. did following attacks in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2000. What was missing was a catalytic event on home soil, which 9/11/2001 provided as a giant wakeup call to the American public. Pearl Harbor served the same purpose in WWII, as Congress had fought bitterly about involving themselves against Hitler in Europe.
www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm
READ IT OUT LOUD, JERK!
Then, you can read all of the fresh newslinks about violence in Iraq right here on M&C where you make your nest.
Our resident propagandist, apparently seeking employment in the Kremlin, is now suggesting that what 'critics suggest' is equivalent to 'proof'. Kind of like the WMD in Iraq and the President's mention of yellowcake, eh?
Here's the entire link dum-dum omitted:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
I can dismiss Limbaugh right off the bat, for obvious reasons. A druggie getting wealthy supporting Scaife and the other nutcakes on the right.
As to Dick Morris, who has his own problems, and is anything but objective:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris
'In his 1997 book Behind the Oval Office, Morris wrote that, following an argument in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, he strode towards the exit and was tackled by Bill Clinton. In 2003, Morris further stated that Bill Clinton cocked his arm back to throw a punch, but Hillary Clinton pulled her husband off Morris. In both versions of the story, she consoled Morris and apologized to him, stating that Bill only behaved such with those he cared for most. According to Morris, she did this to keep him quiet about the incident. He says the incident was the reason for denying Bill Clinton's request to work on the '92 campaign; Clinton's side of the story is not known.'
'What a damned liar you are!'
WHAT HAVE I LIED ABOUT? LIAR?
'I'M addressing LEGISLATION passed by Congress and watered down based on what Clinton proposed.'
Pretty useless when the Clinton's are vetoing attempts to kill Bin Laden.
'YOU'RE talking about attacks for which terrorists were apprehended and punished.'
No, Idiot, had you even bothered to read what I wrote you would have seen that I am talking about the Clinton's steadfast refusal to recognize that we were at war even in the face of dozens of attacks. (World trade center #1, the Cole, the embassy bombings, ect) The equivalent would have been like Roosevelt swearing out a warrant for the Japanese pilots arrest after Pearl Harbor was bombed and leaving it at that.
'
Here's an entire Snopes link on 'urban legends' covering the facts on what Clinton's admin.
I have just documented 2 of the several occasions that the Clinton administration had to kill bin laden yet they decided not to. Yet tou toss back something from 'snopes.com/rumors'...
I will take the 9/11 commissions word over yet another leftist website that in this case doesn't even dispute what I have said, IDIOT.
'Then, you can read all of the fresh newslinks about violence in Iraq right here on M&C where you make your nest.'
Yeah... They never do get to the retractions here...
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/mnf-i-responds-another-bogus-report- no.html
MNF-I Responds--- ANOTHER BOGUS REPORT!... No Evidence of Dwelah Massacre!
(This post was updated and bumped.)
'The story you are reading in the news is NOT true... CF assessment: Wildly inflated, irresponsibly exaggerated claims-no 600 families displaced, no 200 terrorists, no evidence of civilian KIA.'
MAJ Peggy Kageleiry
Task Force Iron PAO
On the 'Dwelah Massacre' reports
The 'Dwelah Massacre' made international headlines on December 2, 2007.
I am happy to tell you that violence in Iraq is down about 70%. So your precious terrorists that you have been rooting for have been DEFEATED, Your arguments have been proven WRONG, you have been shown to be a LIAR, If you weren't such an IDIOT, you would have the sense to be ASHAMED.
mediamatters.org/items/200508160002
(The above was a 2005 link which refers to Berger 'taking copies' as opposed to 'removing documents' permanently. The later findings where nothing was permanently removed or destroyed can be researched here)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_ terror_documents
(There's a long discussion in there as to what Berger copied, or took, and the WSJ even retracted its original article. None of it has anything to do with 'covering up for Clinton')
(Now, back to the original garbage peddled by Kelley et al - this is the opening paragraph of a long link showing errors made by Kelley and others in their coverage of Mohammed Atta's part in 9/11, as well)
'Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh, Fox News host John Gibson, and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette national security writer Jack Kelly speculated -- citing no evidence -- that former national security adviser Samuel 'Sandy' Berger sought to remove or replace documents from the National Archives that would have exposed the Clinton administration's purported failure in 1999 to act on intelligence regarding lead September 11, 2001, hijacker Mohammed Atta. Their baseless speculation came amid allegations, which have been called into serious question, that the 9-11 Commission omitted from its report intelligence documents from 1999 that identified Atta as a potential threat.'
(Berger used exceedingly bad judgment, likely under some kind of personal pressure, but there's not a lick of evidence that it want beyond that. He was heavily fined and surrendered his law license, after being convictered of 'mishandling classified terror documents', a sentence deserved.)
RE: Yet tou toss back something from 'snopes.com/rumors'...
======================
Snopes is the well recognized authority on rumormongering and publishing the facts, and to you it's probably like a vampire coming upon garlic, so you're as oblivious as ever, and rock-hard in your by-design ignorance of what goes on in the real world.
As we once again come out of the caverns of past administrations, including when Bush Sr. left Saddam in power, and come to daylight, we find in CURRENT NEWS:
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/washington/09zubaydah.html?hp
Destruction of C.I.A. Tapes Could Alter Prosecutions
'WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — The destruction of hundreds of hours of videotapes showing interrogations of top operatives of Al Qaeda, including Abu Zubaydah, could complicate the prosecution of Mr. Zubaydah and others, and it underscores the deep uncertainties that have plagued government officials about the interrogation program.
Officials acknowledged on Friday that the destruction of evidence like videotaped interrogations could raise questions about whether the Central Intelligence Agency was seeking to hide evidence of coercion. A review of records in military tribunals indicates that five lower-level detainees at Guantánamo were initially charged with offenses based on information that was provided by or related to Mr. Zubaydah. Lawyers for these detainees could argue that they needed the tapes to determine what, if anything, Mr. Zubaydah had said about them.'
ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyL3au-RZxEcch2P9ymXaJ9mroogD8TD0A9G0
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she could not rule out White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes, saying she had only asked the president about it, not others.
(Very cute)
Perino refused to say whether the destruction could have been an obstruction of justice or a threat to cases against terrorism suspects. If the attorney general decides to investigate, 'of course the White House would support that,' she said.
(Yeah; THERE'S an impartial arbiter! How about a Special Prosecutor?)
In a daily press briefing dedicated almost solely to the topic of the CIA tapes, Perino responded 19 times that she didn't know or couldn't comment.
(Another personal best for 2007, I believe)
At least one White House official, then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, knew about the CIA's planned destruction of videotapes in 2005 that documented the interrogation of two al-Qaida operatives, ABC news reported Friday. Three officials told ABC News that Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes. White House officials declined to comment on the report.
(Whoops!)
The spy agency destroyed the tapes in November 2005, at a time when human rights groups and lawyers for detainees were clamoring for information about the agency's secret detention and interrogation program, and Congress and U.S. courts were debating where 'enhanced interrogation' crossed the line into torture. Also at that time, the Senate Intelligence Committee was asking whether the videotapes showed CIA interrogators were complying with interrogation guidelines. The CIA refused twice in 2005 to provide the committee with its general counsel's report on the tapes, according to Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
(Contempt of Congress, anyone? This is LOTS better than Monicagate ever was! The entire COUNTRY got screwed this time.)
(Aside from Bush visiting the Mideast in January, not much to deflect press coverage. The attacks in Iraq are getting coverage again, and Afghanistan is a complete mess. Not a lot to fall back on. Rehashing the past won't cut it.
The question is WHO in THIS White House knew that evidence was being destroyed, and approved of it!)
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/12/08/MNHMTQKL8.DTL
Probe sought in destruction of CIA tapes
Lawmakers charge agency eliminated evidence of torture
(12-08) 04:00 PST Washington -- Key members of Congress called Friday for multiple investigations into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes, charging that the agency may have eliminated evidence of torture, obstructed justice or engaged in an illegal coverup.
The CIA's disclosure that it had destroyed tapes showing harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects rekindled the emotional controversy surrounding U.S. practices and threatened to reopen the tense confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration first begun more than three years ago.
Democratic leaders demanded that Attorney General Michael Mukasey order a full Justice Department investigation into whether the CIA had acted illegally in destroying the tapes, which recorded interrogations of two terrorism suspects.
'We haven't seen anything like this since the 18 1/2-minute gap in the tapes of President Richard Nixon,' Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a blistering speech on the Senate floor.
A Justice Department spokesman said the congressional requests for an investigation were under review. At the same time, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said the panel already has opened its own inquiry into the matter, and he challenged a CIA assertion that key lawmakers had been briefed on the decision to dispose of the recordings.
'Now, the rest of the trash'
Well, quite right, what you posted IS trash.... You seem to think that people will be impressed by your heavily redacted, cherry picked cut and paste joobs from sources like 'dailykos', 'commondreams', 'huffingtonpost' and 'MediaMatters'... They are not concerned with 'truth' in the slightest, they are propagandists. Just like you: Liars.
'Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.'
In other words they spin.
'The above was a 2005 link which refers to Berger 'taking copies' as opposed to 'removing documents' permanently. The later findings where nothing was permanently removed or destroyed can be researched here'
HE PLEAD GUILTY! HE took documents, cut them up with scissors, buried others.. None of that is in dispute any more. Your article from media matters was written before he actually ADMITTED to breaking the law. You are posting old spin to cover up old lies. Idiot!
'There's a long discussion in there as to what Berger copied, or took, and the WSJ even retracted its original article. None of it has anything to do with 'covering up for Clinton'
HE WAS CAUGHT
'Berger used exceedingly bad judgment, likely under some kind of personal pressure, but there's not a lick of evidence that it want beyond that.'
He took all the copies of specific documents that showed the handling of the terrorist threat by the Clinton administration to be the incompetent mess that it was. According to the link that YOUU just posted:
'He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing the copies and cutting three up with scissors. Archive staff stated they witnessed Berger, on more than one occasion, stuffing into his pants and into his jacket papers he was illegally removing.[14] Two of the copies were recovered by DOJ investigators and returned to the archives.'
'Critics suggest Berger destroyed primary evidence revealing anti-terrorism policies and actions, and that his motive was to permanently erase Clinton administration pre-9/11 mistakes from the public record.'
'Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building).' Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.'
ONCE AGAIN, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE HAS DONE THIS, he has PAID A FINE, he has SURRENDERED HIS SECURITY CLEARANCE, he has SURRENDERED HIS LAW LICENSE, He has APOLOGIZED: 'I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize.'
The fact that you are so divorced from reality that you are STILL trying to contend that there is nothing to see here is pathetic.
'Let's get back on the damned topic-BUSH'
Fine, idiot, according to the New York times, the same outlet that broke the story to begin with the Bush administration told CIA Not to destroy the tapes. The New York Times is now reporting that CIA officials were advised not to destroy videotapes of terrorist interrogations:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.
The chief of the agency’s clandestine service [Jose A. Rodriguez Jr.] nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/washington/08intel.html?ex=1354770000&en=100 7e96ca6553660&ei=5090
That of course WAS the DAMNED TOPIC? Right Ali?
So tell me, why is it that you whine like the stuck pig that you are when Valerie Plame gets outed but REAL CIA agents protect their identities by destroying tapes that THEY are on? Why is it you whine that it is Bush's fault when it was done against his orders?
Could it be that you are just a spinning liar?
'Snopes is the well recognized authority on rumormongering and publishing the facts, and to you it's probably like a vampire coming upon garlic, so you're as oblivious as ever, and rock-hard in your by-design ignorance of what goes on in the real world.'
No they are not, regardless, in this case they haven't contradicted a thing I have said, idiot.
'White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she could not rule out White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes, saying she had only asked the president about it, not others.'
Well they can and have today:
'WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.
The chief of the agency’s clandestine service [Jose A. Rodriguez Jr.] nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.’s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.'
Read it again......Idiot.
'Perino refused to say whether the destruction could have been an obstruction of justice or a threat to cases against terrorism suspects.'
LOL! Like it matters:
WE ARE IN A WAR, these things that we have caught are not entitled to the same constitutional protection as American Citizens. In WW2 when we caught unlawful combatants we got whatever information we could out of them by any means necessary and then cooked the bastards in the electric chair. Look up 'Operation Pastorius'... Idiot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius
'The spy agency destroyed the tapes in November 2005, at a time when human rights groups and lawyers for detainees were clamoring for information about the agency's secret detention and interrogation program, '
Good. Well done.
'Contempt of Congress, anyone?'
Since the approval ratings of this congress are in the teens it seems that a lot of people have contempt for it.
'The attacks in Iraq are getting coverage again, and Afghanistan is a complete mess.'
Again, liar, that is just complete nonsense. The terrorists that you have been rooting for have been getting eradicated like roaches in front of a raid can.
' Not a lot to fall back on. Rehashing the past won't cut it.
LOL! the democrats have abandoned Iraq as a campaign issue it is going so well.
'Probe sought in destruction of CIA tapes
That will further establish the democrats as the party of appeasement. I can't wait.
'Lawmakers charge agency eliminated evidence of torture'
Booo hooo.
Learn how to spell with out cutting and pasting from word into html. You just turn the bold on with your formatting differences.
A smart fellow like you should be able to write the language of the country that adopted you out off your iranian hellhole well enough by now in order to attempt to weaken our resolve in the face of the enemy that you are without turning on the BOLD PRINT.
''The attacks in Iraq are getting coverage again, and Afghanistan is a complete mess.''
Here Liar:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Violence in Iraq has dropped significantly in recent months, but it's still too soon to declare the home stretch in U.S. operations here, the commander of Multinational Force Iraq said today.
Army Gen David H. Petraeus cited significant security progress during a roundtable with reporters at the Multinational Task Force headquarters at Camp Victory. Following the roundtable discussion, the general spent an hour with visiting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Weekly attacks in recent weeks are roughly 60 percent of the levels they were in June, Petraeus said. High-profile attacks are down 60 percent from their high in March, and attacks overall have dropped during the last seven weeks to levels not seen here consistently since spring 2005.
As a result, fatalities are down, too. Civilian deaths have fallen dramatically to rates not seen since late 2005. And during a year Petraeus acknowledged has witnessed the most U.S. combat losses since operations first began in Iraq, the figure for November was its lowest in 20 months.
Dems to Back Down on War Money
By ANNE FLAHERTY – 4 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — After weeks of tough talk, Democrats appear resigned to back down again on providing money for the Iraq war.
What happened?
'Republicans, Republicans, Republicans,' said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. 'The real problem here is the president and his Republican backers' who have 'staked out an increasingly hard-lined position.'
Indeed, with Democrats holding a razor-thin majority in the Senate and with 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles, Senate Republicans were in a plum negotiating spot this month.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., insisted that if Democrats want legislation paying for government operations this year, they will have to include money for the Iraq war.
'Do Republicans have a tough stance on funding the troops in the field? Yes,' said McConnell's spokesman, Don Stewart. 'Because we made a commitment to the troops overseas to give them the training and equipment and support that they need.'
Democrats now are expected to allow Senate Republicans to attach tens of billions of dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a $500 billion-plus government-wide spending bill. That move would be in exchange for GOP support on the huge spending measure.
The war money would not be tied to troop withdrawals, as Democrats want. But it would let Democrats wrap up their long-unfinished budget work and go on vacation before Christmas. It also would spare them from criticism during the holiday recess by President Bush for leaving work without providing money for the troops.
Iraq doubters, concede with dignity
Go ahead and natter about the mistakes. But don't stand in the way of progress.
By Clifford D. May
Pity poor Harry Reid. Back in April, the Senate Democratic leader proclaimed the war in Iraq 'lost.' Two months before Gen. David Petraeus had in place the reinforcements he needed to implement his bold, new strategy, which included a 'surge' of operations against Al-Qaida forces in Iraq, Reid also said: 'The surge is not accomplishing anything.'
Since then, it has become increasingly obvious that Reid was wrong, that the 'surge' has been accomplishing nothing less than the defeat of Al-Qaida in the very heart of the Arab world. Petraeus' troops appear to be making progress against Iranian-backed militias as well. As a result, the threat of an Iraqi civil war has diminished and there is no 'resistance' movement to speak of -- not of Saddam Hussein loyalists and certainly not of patriotic Iraqi nationalists.
The elite media are, belatedly, acknowledging this reality: 'By every metric used to measure the war -- total attacks, U.S. casualties, Iraqi casualties, suicide bombings, roadside bombs -- there has been an enormous improvement,' reports the Washington Post. The Los Angeles Times adds that 'war-weary Sunnis and Shiites are joining hands at the local level to protect their communities from militants on both sides.' According to the Pew Research Center: 'For the first time in a long time, nearly half of Americans express positive opinions about the situation in Iraq.'
Maybe Reid thinks this is all baloney. But what if he does recognize that progress is being made? What are he and others like him to do? It is not only occupants of the Oval Office who don't relish saying: 'I was wrong.'
Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., hasn't said that. He believes the war was 'one of the most egregious mistakes in the history of this country.' But he adds that to abandon Iraq too soon would be an equally serious error.
'The facts on the ground are the situation is improving in Iraq,' Baird recently said on the House floor. 'Courageous Americans have given their lives and the time away from their families to make that happen. ... Progress is being made. Do not let anyone today say it is not. Violence is down. Political leaders are reaching out across the aisle. Shias are meeting with Sunnis. Sunnis are meeting with Shias. They need more time to succeed, and an insecure situation will undermine the progress, not further it.'
Why can't Reid -- and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards and others -- follow Baird's example? Because, unlike Baird, they voted in 2003 to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. In other words, they were for the war when that was politically popular, then they turned against the war when the going got rough and the polls headed south, and now, if they shift again, they fear they will look like triple flip-flopping opportunists.
The temptation to be gleeful should be resisted -- most of all by those of us who have been determined to see a successful outcome salvaged in Iraq. Instead, politicians looking for a way back to the provictory coalition should be given assistance.
I'll contribute my 2 cents: Here, Sen. Reid, are a few talking points for you and others who may want to jump off the defeatist bandwagon without breaking your political necks:
Say that President Bush should have foreseen that toppling Saddam would create a vacuum -- and an irresistible temptation for Al-Qaida and Iran. Say that Bush was foolish to proclaim 'Mission Accomplished' when the toughest tasks still lay ahead, and irresponsible to shout 'Bring it On' when he was neither militarily nor politically prepared for what was coming. Say it took Bush too long to recognize that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top generals in Iraq needed to be replaced by commanders with a new and improved strategy.
Say the credit for turning the situation around in Iraq goes to American men and women in uniform. Say America has the most dedicated, courageous and -- perhaps most important -- adaptable military the world has ever seen. Say that as much as you think Bush deserves to take more heat, you understand that when a plane crashes it's not just the pilot who burns.
Finally, say you are not among those who regard bad news in Iraq as good news for yourself and the Democratic Party. Say that while you may have been persuaded that America's defeat in Iraq was inevitable, you were never among those who saw America's defeat as desirable. Such people betray us. You should say that, too.
Murtha Eats Crow On Iraq
By Jack Kelly
While most of us were enjoying turkey for Thanksgiving dinner, Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Johnstown), was eating a little crow.
'I think the surge is working,' Rep. Murtha said last week after a quick holiday visit to Iraq.
The observation isn't remarkable. The signs of progress in Iraq are so obvious that even the New York Times has begun to report them. For, instance, U.S. deaths in Iraq in November (35, 26 in combat) were the lowest since March of 2006. Iraqi civilian deaths were about a third of what they had been in November of last year.
But it was remarkable coming from Rep. Murtha, who declared the troop surge a failure before it had begun. At a news conference on the eve of his trip, he'd accused the Pentagon of lying when it reported good news: 'Because the Pentagon said it, you believe it?' he yelled at a reporter who'd cited statistics showing improvement.
Because the news media have been slow to report the changes in Iraq, the self-deluded can continue to deny that what's happening is really happening. A caller insisted to me that a suicide car bombing in Ramadi Nov. 21st in which six Iraqis died 'proves' that al Qaida really isn't being defeated.
The attack was the first in Ramadi in four or five months, and hasn't been repeated since, said Col. John Charlton, commander of the Army-Marine brigade in Ramadi.
The bomb itself was an indicator of how much the capabilities of the terrorists have fallen, Col. Charlton said in a telephone conversation.
'It was very low yield, about 60 lbs,' he said. 'Back in February, March, we'd see VBIEDs with 1,000, 2,000 lbs of explosives.'
'There's nothing bad happening here,' Col. Charlton said. 'There's a lot of good things happening. We had a parade here in Ramadi that involved all of the Iraqi security forces. They did it in October, because last October al Qaida had a parade, and the Iraqis wanted a bigger and better parade.'
The parade and its significance drew no attention from the news media. 'Coverage has really dropped off,' Col. Charlton said.
But if progress continues, it will be difficult for the news media to play down.
'Baghdad, the most dangerous city in all of Iraq, is only half as violent as it was when I was there in the summer,' wrote Michael Totten in the New York Daily News Sunday. 'And the fact that the capital is now the deadliest city is itself evident of a tectonic shift.
'In the Spring of 2007, Ramadi was the most violent place in Iraq,' Mr. Totten wrote. 'But the insurgency there has been finished. The Taji area north of Baghdad, which was a catastrophe when I paid a visit in July, is now going the way of Ramadi.'
Even without much positive coverage so far, public opinion is changing. A Pew poll concluded Nov. 26 indicated 48 percent of respondents think the military effort in Iraq is going well, up from 30 percent in February.
Rep. Murtha's epiphany comes at an awkward time for his pal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because Democrats are refusing to pass a bill funding the war unless it is coupled with a timetable for prompt withdrawal of U.S. troops.
'This could be a real headache for us,' the Politico quoted a House Democratic aide as saying. 'Pelosi is going to be furious.'
Ms. Pelosi was indeed furious, at least in public, and Rep. Murtha backtracked a little. Even though our troops are succeeding in Iraq, he still supports withdrawing them because the Iraqi government 'is close to dysfunctional.'
Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash, who accompanied Mr. Murtha on the Thanksgiving trip to Iraq, agreed both that the surge is working, and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn anyway. But he admitted there was hypocrisy in Democratic criticisms of the Iraqi government.
'I felt kind of embarrassed to tell the Iraqis they had to get their act together and pass legislation when we can't do it back here,' Rep. Dicks told the Seattle Times.
Democrats returning from the Thanksgiving recess report few of their constituents asked them about Iraq. Efforts to force retreat are becoming a political loser.
That's why Boston Herald City Editor Jules Crittenden thinks Rep. Murtha may have been acting quietly on behalf of the Democratic leadership when he signaled willingness to back off on the war funding bill.
'I believe that what Murtha is saying is that he is ready to discuss surrender terms, but would like to be allowed to keep his sword,' Mr. Crittenden wrote on his blog.
(I see you're back to regurgitating the usual good-news puffery like some vulture feeding its young, so just get your talons around this)
www.newsweek.com/id/73363
The Sunni Civil War
They're fighting with words, not bullets. But the rift is still dangerous.
Reconciliation in Iraq is most often portrayed as a matter of bringing Shiites and Sunnis together. But there are deep divisions within the Sunni community as well—between the new tribal levies and old politicians, Baathists and anti-Baathists, fundamentalist mosque-goers and secular whisky drinkers. Shiite leaders warn they can't be expected to find common ground with Sunnis who cannot find it among themselves. 'We have been asking them to unify their front and be a full-fledged partner in the process of dialogue and reconciliation, but we cannot get a true partner,' says Saad Yousif al-Muttalibi, an adviser to the Shiite leadership.
Ironically, success is fueling some of the internal squabbles. The militias in America's Concerned Local Citizens program now include more than 65,000 orange-vested fighters, many of them former insurgents. They rightly claim credit for quelling violence across Iraq, and want their voices heard. 'They say, 'Hey, we've stopped fighting. We've come halfway',' says Col. Martin Stanton, a coordinator of the groups for the U.S. military. ' 'We want into the … government'.' But there are already Sunnis on the inside, such as the Iraqi Islamic Party, which is led by exiles who opposed Saddam's regime and joined the U.S.-crafted political system early. They're used to speaking for Iraq's Sunnis, and control the local governments (and more important, their budgets) in Sunni-dominated areas like Anbar province.
The stresses between the old guard and new are sharpest in Anbar, the Sunni heartland.
During the summer the Anbar provincial council was expanded to give the former insurgents about one fifth of the seats. That has only given the two sides a new forum in which to argue. Last month, at a conference to discuss how to spend public-works money in Anbar, the Sunni tribesmen angrily accused their rivals of monopolizing projects and pulled out of the council. 'We are demanding our own share,' says Ahmed Abu Risha, the tribes' most prominent leader. He threatens a wave of street demonstrations to force the creation of a new council.
In Baghdad's Ameriyah neighborhood, another Sunni stronghold, the Islamic Party just repainted and reopened its local office, which had been blown up by Al Qaeda. It's festooned with banners and flags but forlorn inside, where party officials have signed up only 65 members in the neighborhood of 25,000 residents. 'We are part of the political process and we have always been dealing with the Americans,' says party activist Moqdad al-Ani. 'But others see us as traitors.' Ameriyah now belongs to militia leader Abu Abed and his American-backed gunmen. When NEWSWEEK visited Abu Abed last week, he was surrounded by swaggering guards decked out with the black gloves, shades and kneepads worn by foreign security contractors. He mocked the Islamic Party for 'running away' from Al Qaeda, and accuses it of trying to take credit for his men's success on the battlefield. Like many Iraqis, he wants nothing to do with the current crop of political parties. 'It's too early to say' who should represent Sunnis in the government, he says.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120500763.ht ml?hpid=sec-world
(The entire link is provided for Gates' good-news/bad-news realism, but here are key points right from Gates, who sees the need to move surge troops elsewhere)
BAGHDAD, Dec. 5 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that a stable and democratic Iraq is 'within reach.' But he cautioned that threats remain, pointing to insurgent efforts to create a stronghold in northern Iraq as U.S. commanders seek more than 1,400 additional Iraqi and U.S. troops there.
In a reminder that security remains tenuous, a series of car and roadside bombs exploded across Iraq on Wednesday, killing at least 28 people and wounding 69.
(Many more incidents since then)
The Mosul bombing underscored what Gates said was a rise in attacks in the northern section of the country, which stretches from Baghdad north to the Syrian and Turkish borders, and east to Iran. 'As military operations have pushed al-Qaeda out of the south and west, there has been a resulting increase in terrorist activities in Mosul and surrounding areas as al-Qaeda tries to establish a new foothold,' Gates said, referring to the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.
'While we surged in Baghdad, we held in [the] north. Now we think it may be time' to shift forces, Thomas said, adding that Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, in charge of day-to-day military operations in Iraq, would decide on the U.S. reinforcements.
In Baqubah, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad in Diyala province, a suicide car bomber detonated his explosives in a bus station, killing five and wounding 13, provincial police said. The station was crowded with passengers heading to mostly Shiite areas in the province, said police Lt. Col. Suhaiel Abid. In the northern oil-rich city of Kirkuk, a car bomb targeting a police convoy exploded near a restaurant, killing two civilians and injuring eight.
Still, Gates added that 'much remains to be done' in Iraq. For example, he said the Shiite-led government needs to integrate local volunteers -- 76 percent of whom are Sunni -- into the Iraqi army or police or given other work. The unexpected upsurge in local volunteers has coincided with decreased violence and the discovery of more weapons caches, but could also be a source of instability if the volunteers are not given permanent work, experts say.
'Iraqis who have chosen the fight against al-Qaeda need to be integrated into Iraq's security forces or provided other job opportunities,' Gates said.
Overall, Gates voiced concern that progress on reconciliation at the local level is moving faster than at the national level, said a senior defense official who briefed reporters on the way to Iraq. National leaders 'may be outpaced' by developments at the grass-roots level, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
(That's not a sign that we've 'won', if we cannot provide a small number of marines to lead in Afghanistan)
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/world/middleeast/06gates.html?em&ex=11970900 00&en=165214409d6fd676&ei=5087%0A
BAGHDAD, Dec. 5 — Senior Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had decided against a proposal to shift Marine Corps forces from Iraq to take the lead in American operations in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gates told top Marine Corps officials and his senior aides that the situation in western Iraq, where the Marines now operate in Anbar Province, remained too volatile to contemplate such a significant change in how the ground combat mission in Iraq is shared by the Army and the Marine Corps.
(Gates, whom I respect enormously, has to go back and report to Bush and tell him what he wants to hear; while Petraeus is the guy who actually has to make this thing work)
voanews.com/english/2007-12-06-voa9.cfm
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says there is growing pressure from local leaders in Iraq for the top levels of government to replicate the political reconciliation occurring in parts of the country. Gates spoke Thursday in Bahrain after visiting Iraq, where he met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and top Iraqi officials. He said Mr. Maliki and Iraq's Presidential Council know they need to make progress on key legislative issues.
Gates also met with the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus. General Petraeus said the U.S. military still faces a dangerous enemy in Iraq, despite a recent decline in violence across the country.
---
(They cannot replicate the Sunni 'reconciliation', since as per the prior link on that topic, the Sunni tribes are busy battling amongst themselves for power)
www.newsweek.com/id/7336
'At least the tribals and the politicians are arguing over political representation, rather than shooting at each other like the Sunnis of Arab Jabour. But that could change if there's no political progress. Sunni politicians are wary of compromising on matters like the release of Sunni prisoners and amnesty for former Baathists, lest they be painted as sellouts by their Sunni rivals. Shiite leaders aren't above playing one Sunni camp off another; last week Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki tried to appoint an Anbar tribal loyalist to a cabinet seat that had been slated for someone from the mainstream Sunni parties. 'Everybody is betting on violence to sort everything out. That psychology has to be changed,' says Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi. The last thing Iraq needs is another civil war.'
voanews.com/english/2007-12-08-voa7.cfm
Ex-White House Aide Knew of CIA Plans to Destroy Interrogation Tapes
By VOA News
08 December 2007
U.S. news agencies say the CIA was advised by a former senior White House official not to destroy videotaped interrogations of terror suspects.
The reports say former counsel Harriet Miers urged the intelligence agency to preserve the tapes before they were destroyed in 2005. The New York Times says officials in the Justice Department, along with some senior members of Congress, also advised the CIA to keep the tapes.
The videotapes were ordered destroyed by Jose Rodriguez, who was then in charge of the CIA's covert operations division. The Times says he did so without informing the CIA's legal counsel.
(There are now 1,646 separate linked articles on this under Google News' first story, and that's up from an hour ago at 1,538. Bad news for the Bushies. This story has a good insight into the turmoil within the CIA itself with regard to taking risks.)
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1692571,00.html
CIA Tapes Furor: A Legacy of Mistrust
This week's uproar over the destruction of interrogation tapes by the CIA offers a rare public glimpse into a perennial battle within the agency's clandestine service. Since Watergate, the CIA's case officers have been restrained by the expectation that taking risks in pursuit of actionable intelligence would bring career-ending, or even life-threatening, exposure if things went badly and details came to light. CIA leaders, especially after 9/11, have sought to unshackle their operatives by reassuring case officers they would be protected if they took risks. Current CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden said Thursday that the tapes of the questioning of al-Qaeda suspects were destroyed to protect the identities of the interrogators.
Indeed, the man who ordered the tapes destroyed is certainly familiar with the case that agency employees view as one of the worst political betrayals of an operative. Jose Rodriguez headed the National Clandestine Service when he ordered the interrogation tapes destroyed. But during the 1980s and 1990s he was a case officer in Latin America and in the CIA headquarters office that oversees operations there. He served under Terry Ward, the onetime director of Latin American operations who was fired in 1995 by then-CIA director John Deutch. President Bill Clinton's foreign intelligence advisory board had found Ward 'derelict' in his duties for failing to inform Congress of human rights violations by agents of the CIA in Guatemala, including complicity in the death of an American citizen.
Ward's firing created a legacy of distrust at the agency. 'There's the perception there that the politicians want you to be risk-takers, but as soon as you do and something turns out badly, they moonwalk away from you faster than a speeding bullet,' says a former senior intelligence official who knows Rodriguez. CIA officers erupted in bitter laughter during a speech after the Ward firing in which Deutch urged them to take risks. Deutch's successor, George Tenet, attempted to mollify case officers by awarding Ward the Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal in March 2000.
..none of it has to do with Bush, these tapes and the CIA, etc.
RE: SP4: All Very Interesting except...
This topic is the LAST thing that these Bush-loving blowhards want to talk about.
www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=20521
December 8, 2007, Greencastle, Ind. - 'Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes,' says Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in the wake of reports the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. 'Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge,' adds Hamilton, a 1952 graduate of DePauw University, in today's Detroit Free Press.
The article details demands by congressional Democrats 'that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed' the tapes. It notes, 'White House press secretary Dana Perino said President George W. Bush didn't recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she didn't rule out White House involvement, saying she hadn't asked others about it.'
Meanwhile, the International Herald Tribune reports 'the former chairmen of the Sept. 11 commission, who said the CIA assured them repeatedly during their inquiry that no original material existed from its interrogations of Qaeda figures, said they were furious to learn about the tapes ... Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton said they had made clear in hours of negotiations and discussions with the CIA, as well as in written requests, that they wanted all material connected to the interrogations of Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody in order to get a complete understanding of the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks for their 2004 report.'
www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/08/america/08inquire.php
Meanwhile, the former chairmen of the Sept. 11 commission, who said the CIA assured them repeatedly during their inquiry that no original material existed from its interrogations of Qaeda figures, said they were furious to learn about the tapes.
The CIA indicated that the Sept. 11 commission never specifically asked for any tape recordings of prisoner interrogations.
But in separate interviews on Friday, the co-chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, said they had made clear in hours of negotiations and discussions with the CIA, as well as in written requests, that they wanted all material connected to the interrogations of Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody in order to get a complete understanding of the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks for their 2004 report.
The commission ended up getting summaries of interrogation reports and was able to forward questions of its own for CIA officers to ask the prisoners.
'The CIA certainly knew of our interest in getting all the information we could on the detainees, and they never indicated to us there were any videotapes,' Hamilton said. 'Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes. Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge.'
Kean said, 'I'm upset that they didn't tell us the truth.'
www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071208/NEWS07/712080310/1009
• Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused the CIA of a cover-up. 'We haven't seen anything like this since the 18 1/2 -minute gap in the tapes of President Richard Nixon,' he said.
• Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said the CIA's explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of agents is 'a pathetic excuse,' adding that 'you'd have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory.'
• Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he wouldn't side with calls for an investigation because he believed the CIA's actions were legal. 'That doesn't mean I like it,' he added.
(Guess which guy is running/pandering for the GOP nomination)
• Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who headed the House Intelligence Committee when the tapes were destroyed, disputed Hayden's claim that Congress was told of the tapes and their destruction.
• Lee Hamilton, former cochairman of the 9/11 commission: 'Did they obstruct our inquiry? The answer is clearly yes. Whether that amounts to a crime, others will have to judge.'
(This is the White House effort to short-circuit a Congressional investigation, by my calculations. This 'probe' will only determine if there will be any further action taken, and will NOT get into the story, itself. This is a cover-up in the making)
www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/08/cia.videotapes/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department and the CIA will jointly investigate the destruction of videotapes of CIA interrogations of two al Qaeda suspects, a top official said.
The Justice Department's assistant attorney general for national security, Kenneth L. Wainstein, announced the investigation Saturday in a letter to the CIA's top lawyer, John Rizzo. The probe will determine 'whether further investigation is warranted,' Wainstein said.
'I see you're back to regurgitating the usual good-news puffery like some vulture feeding its young, so just get your talons around this...'
Your English as a second language class at the local community college didn't cover the mixing of metaphors I see.
'The Sunni Civil War
They're fighting with words, not bullets. But the rift is still dangerous.'
Eyerolls...'They're fighting with words, not bullets. But the rift is still dangerous?' Not as dangerous as the 'bullets' kind... Idiot. Thanks for another non sequitur. As long as they are not shooting at us it doesn't matter. One ting that I have seen throughout my travel in the Middle East: the Sunnis absolutely despise the shiites as agents of Iran. You lend credence to their assessment.
www.knx1070.com/CIA--Justice-Dept--Announce-Joint-Inquiry-Into-Des/1302254< br />
The issue came to light when Hayden told agency employees on Thursday that the recordings were destroyed out of fear the tapes would leak and reveal the identities of interrogators.
He said the sessions were videotaped to provide an added layer of legal protection for interrogators using new, harsh methods authorized by U.S. President George W. Bush.
Yet a well informed source told CBS News the videotapes were destroyed to protect CIA officers from criminal prosecution, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/08/terror/main3594729.shtml
Congressional Democrats had demanded that the Justice Department investigate. Some accused the CIA of a cover-up and described the CIA's explanation as 'a pathetic excuse.'
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin, said Attorney General Michael Mukasey should find out 'whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence from official proceedings violated the law.'
'That's not a sign that we've 'won', if we cannot provide a small number of marines to lead in Afghanistan'
It is a sign that we have won if they are not necessary on either front... Idiot. We have about 2 and a half million people in our armed forces. If more were needed in either theater they could be provided. Since they are basically crossing in from Pakistan to be turned in to red mist by our air power more Marines there are just adding to the long deployments.
Taliban Bench Warmers
'They're just coming up here and getting killed.'
by Christian Lowe
IT'S TRUE THAT INSURGENT violence is on the rise in Afghanistan, with a surging Taliban taking up tactics first used against U.S. forces in Iraq, including suicide bombs, improvised explosive devices, and vehicle-borne IEDs. Afghan civilians and national security forces are being killed in greater numbers this year than any year since the 2001 invasion. According to an Afghan diplomatic source, 700 civilians have been killed so far this year--some in poorly-targeted U.S. bombing raids--but a large proportion of those have been the victims of insurgent attacks.
The other side of the story is quite different, however. Along with the rise in Taliban--and to some extent, al Qaeda violence--has come a sharp increase in the number of insurgents killed by Coalition (mostly American and Australian) troops and Afghan security forces. The Afghan diplomat said about 3,500 Taliban have been killed this year, and several top commanders captured.
There's been a major tactical shift recently in how the Taliban insurgency attacks Coalition forces. Of course, IEDs and suicide bombings are up 20 percent over last year's 5,388 total, but there have also been a number of large-scale engagements waged against allied patrols that wind up resulting in high enemy losses. It seems anathema to the usual tactics of an insurgency, where small hit-and-run attacks prove most effective at driving government forces and their allies out of the fight. And it speaks to a growing trend of military incompetence within a Taliban depleted of its experienced, native-born fighters.
In September alone, a number of engagements
involving hundreds of Taliban fighters resulted in resounding defeats for the insurgents. In two separate battles on September 27, Coalition forces claimed 165 Taliban fighters killed. And just this week, NATO forces and Afghan soldiers reportedly trapped 250 Taliban fighters in a village north of Kandahar after an attempted insurgent ambush. That's counter to the basic tenets of guerrilla warfare which abhors mass--the more fighters you pull together in one group, the bigger the target. The Soviet-fighting mujahedeen were only able to mass in significant numbers after U.S.-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles eliminated Soviet air cover.
So, why the sudden wave of mass attacks? A lot has been made in recent news reports of the increase in foreign fighters joining the ranks of the Taliban, with some of those stories insinuating that the development is a measure of the insurgency's growing strength and influence. The New York Times reported on October 29 that the foreign fighters 'are not only bolstering the ranks of the insurgency. They are more violent, uncontrollable and extreme than their locally bred allies.'
But a top American commander based in Kandahar--where the Taliban movement was born--explained that from his perspective the foreign fighter influx is actually a sign of weakness. The high body count is a result of 'ineptitude' he said, and stems from the fighters' lack of experience and training.
'In this type of war, when you mass against forces like us . . . without firepower, we're able to destroy them quite easily and we've shown that over the last six to seven months,' said Col. Thomas McGrath, the American commander in charge of training Afghan security forces near Kandahar. 'They're bringing in cohorts of young men who really don't know any better and it's been a colossal failure for them.'
'BAGHDAD, Dec. 5 -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that a stable and democratic Iraq is 'within reach.' But he cautioned that threats remain, pointing to insurgent efforts to create a stronghold in northern Iraq as U.S. commanders seek more than 1,400 additional Iraqi and U.S. troops there.'
Gee, thanks for proving my point again.
'Gates, whom I respect enormously, has to go back and report to Bush and tell him what he wants to hear; while Petraeus is the guy who actually has to make this thing work'
No, that is not what gates has to do. Regardless, none of what you have posted is refuting anything I have said, moron. You complete moron. The fact that you are posting things like: 'despite a recent decline in violence across the country', 'a stable and democratic Iraq is 'within reach.' underscore the point that you are/were WRONG when you declared Iraq lost. You have been wrong in rooting for the terrorists to kill Americans so you can gave the pleasure of whining about Bush, you have been categorically WRONG in your self proclaimed expertise about strategy, history, indeed just about EVERYTHING you have posted on. You are the anti-oracle.
Most telling is what you cut out of your cut and pastes:
''We need to be patient, but we also need to be absolutely resolved in our desire to see the nascent signs of hope across Iraq expand and flourish.''-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
'Gates said he and Iraqi leaders discussed not only how to 'sustain the progress of recent months but to build upon it,' and he congratulated Maliki on his recent signing of a bilateral agreement outlining the main steps toward creating a long-term strategic relationship with the United States.'
So you cherry pick and censor to paint the most bleak picture of the mission in Iraq and elsewhere? Why? Because you are a defeatist and a liar.
to be clear,winning or losing the war in Iraq has nothing to do with making it right or wrong .Strange however that neocons always seem to find a justification for this war that is based in false premises and downright lies .Just as the next war being prepared against Oran is based on similar lies .The reports stating that Iran is not working on anynuclear weapons emanates from no less than 16 intelligence agencies,all legitimate USA ,all reaching the same conclusion .So the right wuestions in this case are ,why has Bush been hammering on Iran for allo these years,lying to you all ....again,knowing damned well he was lying .And why has this report by your own intelligence agencies found it's way to the public ,amking Bush and Cheney look as fools in the eyes of the world community and the american people (minus the small segment of brainwashed specimen) ?Thje result of it all was the scrambling of the neocon idiots like John Bolton wailing that the intelligence people have it all wrong,that they have no authority to derive political conclusions from their findings (if so ,you guys don't either,right ?) .
So the meror stands naked,and still some people are praising him for his beautiful garments.But the people laughs at these pathetic clowns .
'U.S. news agencies say the CIA was advised by a former senior White House official not to destroy videotaped interrogations of terror suspects'
LOL! YEs, you are finally getting it... I only had to post it 3 times but eventually you found it on your own, you MORON. Even though it undercuts your own argument: That Bush ordered the shredding of the tapes in some Nixonesque attempyt at a cover up, you stupidly post it yourself because you only read the headline: 'Ex-White House Aide Knew of CIA Plans to Destroy Interrogation Tapes'
Yes they Knew about it, They ADVISED THE CIA NOT TO DO IT! The CIA thankfully did it anyway. Good on them.
'There are now 1,646 separate linked articles on this under Google News' first story, and that's up from an hour ago at 1,538. Bad news for the Bushies[sic]
You complete FOOL! Are you not even reading what you post yourself? The BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOLD THEM NOT TO DESTROY THE TAPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOW IS THAT BAD NEWS FOR THE 'BUSHIES'????
Can't you even read what you post yourself? Do you even understand what you are cutting and pasting?
'This is the White House effort to short-circuit a Congressional investigation, by my calculations. '
You are a moron, look at what you posted:
'The reports say former counsel Harriet Miers urged the intelligence agency to preserve the tapes before they were destroyed in 2005. The New York Times says officials in the Justice Department, along with some senior members of Congress, also advised the CIA to keep the tapes.'
'This is a cover-up in the making'
Moron. You posted: 'The videotapes were ordered destroyed by Jose Rodriguez, who was then in charge of the CIA's covert operations division. The Times says he did so without informing the CIA's legal counsel. '
'The cover-up of the cover-up commences'
Moron... Read what you posted:
'U.S. news agencies say the CIA was advised by a former senior White House official not to destroy videotaped interrogations of terror suspects. '
'Just as the next war being prepared against Oran[sic] is based on similar lies '
Tonny, you iranian coward, if you want to defend Iran go back home and live under the mullahs instead of escaping to the west and defending them as they oppress your own people, you miserable sellout.
There is no western freedom, no welfare state for you to leech off of and you might actually get stoned to death or publicly lynched for having the wrong opinion, but at least you wouldn't be such a sniveling coward.
Bottom line:
The White House advised against it, the CIA did it anyway. Good for the CIA. I actually hope there is another overblown 'congressional investigation'. It will show the democrats as the appeasing sellouts they are, continually undercutting ANY attempt to protect ourselves in a time of war. Congresses approval rating will drop even FURTHER.
Be my guest. Do what you do best, do the ONLY thing you actually DO. Abandon all reason and logic in a quixotic attack on your perpetual scapegoat that will further make you and yours look like idiots who live on your own little planet and weaken the USA in a time of war in the process.
Gee, that strategy worked so well recently with the 'General Betray us' effort! People just loved that! Nothing backfired there you morons! LOL!
How about this: Make sure that each terrorist has a 'dream team' of lawyers! That ought to go over well! Lie, obfuscate, put on a big show, ham it up, grab some headlines.... Turn this non story in to a big deal. I think you will be given all the rope you need to hang yourselves, AGAIN.
'....haell yes ah got rid o thim! Nooo, ah din't burn'em...I got th varsity in here ta do th deed fer me...ah hired Sandy Berger! Haell boyh...he dropped his pants an stuffed thim tapes in lahke he wuz robbin th Walmart...walked rahght outa the oval office with em!'
anyway merry xmas you bunch of mangey bastards
Merry Christmas SP4.
...and a happy Hanukkah!
One other thing: Bush isn't the guy who destroyed any tapes....weird, huh?
right you are sp4 bush only ordered it done.
I have just one question for all of those that are so against waterboarding, uncomfortable positions, sleep deprivation etc. Let's say that your child, mother lover, spouse, whoever you love most in this world is being held by a group of terrorists that are known for sawing off heads. The CIA has one of these terrorists that may well have info that can save you loved ones life. Do you honestly say 'NO!, no torture of any kind-just tough talk'? Honestly?
...except THAT is not illegal, and no one really knows if he did or not. I'd say those are two pertinent points, huh?
Given the climmate between the White House and the CIA, I seriously doubt they are just jumping at their commands.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story