BS: The Grand Deception Continues

Subject: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:31 PM

You have to wonder just how much longer the Bush administration and the intelligence community are going to be allowed to thumb their noses at the very laws they are supposed to uphold.

WASHINGTON - Angry congressional Democrats demanded Friday that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two terrorism suspects.

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to find out "whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence from official proceedings violated the law."

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 in a Senate floor speech.

And Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters the CIA's explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect the identify of agents is "a pathetic excuse," adding: "You'd have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory."

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and Mukasey asking whether the Justice Department gave legal advice to the CIA on the destruction of the tapes, and whether it was planning an obstruction-of-justice investigation.



They're wondering if the CIA broke the law? Well let's take a look:

>>In November 2005 a federal judge ordered the government to disclose whether it had video or audio tapes of specific interrogations. Eleven days later, the government denied it had them.<<

Couple that with:

>>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.<<

So, in November 2005, the CIA was told by a federal judge to produce interrogation tapes then 11 days later they say they don't have any and then we learn that they had destroyed the tapes in November 2005.

Now, I don't know about you but that sounds to me like an obstruction of justice to me. Hello?? Something is certainly wrong here!!!

Christ, of course they tortured these guys! Why else would they be destroying evidence?? To protect the identity of interrogators? Well, Carl Levin shot that rationale to pieces. And they did this in case the tapes were leaked??? BY WHOM???? By someone in the CIA??? So they destroyed evidence because they don't trust their own people??? I can't believe this shit!!

>>White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not recall being told about the tapes or their destruction.<<

I don't know whether this guy should be impeached for what he knew or for what he didn't know!! It's hard to believe they destroyed evidence without White House authorization to do so. And even if Bush didn't know, it proves only that he is an unacceptably incompetent administrator. He's the man in charge--he's supposed to know. That's what they taught me in the military. No excuses, if you're the one in charge, "I didn't know" doesn't cut it.

>>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.<<

So Perino doesn't want to make the same mistake Scott McClellan did by insisting nobody in the White House was involved only to have to eat those words. Of course someone in the White House is involved and we know it goes up to the 2nd-in-command at least. I guess the White House is setting up a scapegoat in their ranks right now in case somebody has to take a fall to protect Bush or Cheney. Scooter II, I call him.

You know damned well the destruction of the tapes has no legal precedent or else it would have been a matter of course and everyone would have known about it up front and no one would have objected. Instead we get this:

>>Hayden said members of the congressional intelligence committees were made aware in February 2003 both of the tapes and the CIA's ultimate plan to destroy them. That claim was denied by several members of the panels, including Republican Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who at the time was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The Senate Intelligence Committee did not learn of the tapes' destruction until November 2006, and Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he was not told in 2003 of the plan to destroy them. The House Intelligence Committee learned of the tapes' destruction in March 2007.<<

Obviously, this is not something that happens routinely or their wouldn't be such an outcry. Obviously, it is not routine or the CIA would not be lying through its teeth that they told everybody they were going to destroy the tape two years in advance.

Unbelievable. Unacceptable. The degree to which the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence community are stooping to break the law and obstruct justice simply to cover their own asses and destroying their credibility in the process is nothing short of staggering. This is the worst administration this country has ever seen. We need to clean out the entire government from top to bottom. These people are not the tiniest bit trustworthy. How much longer are we going to tolerate this crap?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_videotapes

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: MMario
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:36 PM

You have to wonder just how much longer the Bush administration and the intelligence community are going to be allowed to thumb their noses at the very laws they are supposed to uphold.

not really - probably until Bush is out of office - then we'll have 4 to 8 years of someone else doing the same thing. Just like we've had probably 200 plus years prior to the Bush Administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Beer
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 09:45 PM

Bring Back Nixon. What has been happening is a lot worse that what Nixon ever done and I never liked him much either. What a sorrowful mess.
Beer (adrien)

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:05 PM

It will go on as long as Nancy Pelosi can't admit that she was wrong, that these miscreants do need the threat of impeachment hanging over their heads. It's okay if we let them start WW III because somebody won't open her mouth and say "it's back on the table".

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:16 PM

Yes, Pelosi is part of the problem. I agree wholeheartedly.

As for starting WW3, it's unbelievable that Iran had no weapons program and Bush is telling us that they could still get one but otherwise concurring they don't have one while all the while talking about WW3.

Pelosi is incompetent and completely ill-suited to her job. If they could get an impeachment of Clinton don't fucking tell me that they can't get one for Bush and/or Cheney. Of course the pubs aren't going to just hand you a yes vote. I'm sure many dems resisted in the case of Clinton. You have to swing deals. Everybody in Congress has a price. The dems are just spineless. I despair at the thought of them taking power. Bernard Goldberg is right--one side lost its mind and the other lost its balls.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:24 PM

Do the arithmetic. As I recall, you need a 2/3 vote to impeach. How many republicans do you think would vote for impeachment no matter what the justification?

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Sorcha
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:29 PM

So, how many Dems voted for Clintons' impeachment then?

And now the Bushette 'can't recall'.......oh boy. Just how much worse can it really get before next Nov?

And sadly, MMario is probably correct.

'It says right there in the Constitution, it really is OK to have a revolution'

So, who will lead the next revolution? Do we really need a Castro or a Che in this country now?

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 07 Dec 07 - 11:27 PM

>>Do the arithmetic. As I recall, you need a 2/3 vote to impeach. How many republicans do you think would vote for impeachment no matter what the justification?<<

By my calculations, 2/3rds.

So you get off your ass and you get em and you don't take no for an answer. Every politician has a price. Every politician has skeletons. All it takes is someone with savvy to get it done. The dems don't have that. That's all your statement amounts to--an admission that the dems can't get the job done.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:18 AM

No, it says that a Revolution is okay in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Constitution.

I love it when folks say that Obama has too little experience to be President...that was also the case with W and is also true of Hillary. Also with Lincoln. NOBODY has enough experience to be President.

Pelosi has turned out to be an old-time party hack.

Nobody currently in office seems to be working for the good of the community (however you define that).

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Tweed
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 01:18 PM

Yaz, you're right Rapaire. And we are fucked again.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 01:33 PM

I regret to agree with you. But if that is the state of play in the most powerful "democracy" in the Western world, is it any wonder that some say it must be destroyed (if you get my drift)?

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: kendall
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 02:41 PM

Ted Kennedy complaining about a cover up? Now, that's funny!

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 03:31 PM

"Do we really need a Castro or a Che in this country now?"

No copycats, please.

I don't know what it will take but I hope it happens soon.

I'm at the point where I wonder if the U.S. will just crumble into decay and the Chinese economy will rule every aspect our lives. Lets face it, the U.S. strong and free, died a long time ago for millions of Americans by ignoring health care and education. Who let that happen?   

When the U.S. economy is based on the exploitation of others through arms deals, oil, prison systems, information technology, etc; what right do the citizens have to a standard of living that far exceeds their needs?

Instead of longing for the past (apple pie and all that) the next leader has to have extraordinary vision.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 03:53 PM

5 million white house emails are missing.
which is almost understandable.

however:
2 trillion dollars are missing
3 billion dollars in cash sent to Iraq is missing
? million dollars of Saddam's cash and bank accounts are missing

Maybe DC needs a new monument to the unknown dollars.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 04:54 PM

>>3 billion dollars in cash sent to Iraq is missing<<

It's way more than that.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 05:33 PM

Sophistry.......

There is a fairly general indifference to the avowed enemies of the state, and a certain amount of collateral damage is inherent in the situation. Ask the Birmingham Six, etc.

If you want to change things you have to become engaged in political activity: join a party, or form your own party, or a pressure group....

Things won't get better by flouncing about saying, we are surrounded by scoundrels. Someone has to start the work of reforming our democracies sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM

Oh boy, this is going to get fun if a Dem wins the White House in '08 and is given all the executuive powers that Bush has carved out for himself... The Repubs are gonna be cryin' like babies and sayin' stuff like, "Man, this governemnt is corrupt and _____________ is a crook."

I don't see how the Congressional Repubs have so gleefully handed over so many tools for Bush to put in his personal tool box, a tool box which eill be left for the next president...

And if it Hillary Clinton, the Repubs are going to go bomkers at having given up so much authority... Maybe she will round them all up, waterboard 'um and send them off to Guantanimo??? I mean, given the current laws that the Repubs have put on the books she will have that authority...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 06:50 PM

Reforming them Al? Or wiping the slate so we can start again?

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: Charley Noble
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:25 PM

Who do we send to arrest the CIA officials responsible for this? Is it the U.S. marshals, the FBI, or the county sheriff? Inquiring minds want to know, even if we're reluctant to review our real names.

Cheerily,
Elbon Yelrahc

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:50 PM

I am with you, Richard. You can reform the corruption out of a party, but you cannot breathe relevance to it, and that is something a lot of the old parties lack in all the countries about whose politics I have the slightest awareness - relevance to the issues and the people they are supposed to represent.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:57 PM

You need 50% + 1 to impeach - that is in the House, and is probably doable. You need a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict. There are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents in the Senate. Conviction would require getting all of the Democrats, both of the Independents and 16 Republicans. Fat chance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 11:50 AM

The reason I don't buy what you're saying is that the dems haven't even attempted an impeachment proceeding. Pelosi announced as soon as she became speaker that it was off the table.

It means that the dems have no intention of impeaching regardless of whether the votes are there or not.

It is criminal in and of itself not to at least try with all your strength to impeach this man and his henchmen.

All this garbage that we have more important things to do is just that--garbage. Those problems they refer to will always be there waiting for us, it's not like they'll go away before we can deal with them (if only they would).

It's just a lame excuse NOT to seek impeachment and I find it unheard of. I think 30 years ago impeachment would have been automatic. The problem is, the dems don't want Bush impeached because they hide behind him as much as the pubs. They are too afraid and timid to stand before the public in the open. They are so afraid of failing that they'd rather have dull, stupid Dubya to pin it on.

There's a reason the dems are only slightly more popular than the pubs right now when they should have landslide support. The public simply doesn't trust them even though they don't care for the pubs. I feel exactly the same way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Grand Deception Continues
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 09 Dec 07 - 11:58 AM

>>Oh boy, this is going to get fun if a Dem wins the White House in '08 and is given all the executuive powers that Bush has carved out for himself... The Repubs are gonna be cryin' like babies and sayin' stuff like, "Man, this governemnt is corrupt and _____________ is a crook."

I don't see how the Congressional Repubs have so gleefully handed over so many tools for Bush to put in his personal tool box, a tool box which eill be left for the next president...

And if it Hillary Clinton, the Repubs are going to go bomkers at having given up so much authority... Maybe she will round them all up, waterboard 'um and send them off to Guantanimo??? I mean, given the current laws that the Repubs have put on the books she will have that authority...<<

Sure. The pubs are stupid people. Remember the line item veto fiasco? The pubs pushed for that endlessly--endlessly. They couldn't shut up about the need for a line item veto. It made no sense because Clinton was in office. Why would they want to give him that power?? Finally, they got their line item veto enacted. Then Congress sent a bill to Clinton and the pubs attached a bunch of crap to it that Clinton opposed. So he simply stripped it all out and then signed the bill into law as the line item veto permitted him to do. All the sudden the pubs were HOWLING about that! They were livid! HOW DARE HE STRIP OUT OUR ITEMS FROM THE BILL?? WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS??? Uhh...he's a president with a line item veto power that you gave him, you dumbshits. Shortly after that, the line item veto was canned. When you're dealing with pubs, these are the kinds of geniuses you're dealing with.