War Criminal

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 6:37 PM GMT
    today
    in ny times

    WASHINGTON — At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

    The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

    read the entire article here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/19/washington/19cnd-cia.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

    are we honestly this dumb?
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Dec 19, 2007 7:26 PM GMT
    In one word: yeah

    ('tis late; full comment may come tomorrow or some other day)
  • SpartanJock

    Posts: 199

    Dec 19, 2007 7:58 PM GMT
    Yep, indeed. icon_neutral.gif

    There is some much more I could say, but frankly this horse has been beaten way too much.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 8:01 PM GMT
    Edit: News on Yahoo has it the White House now wants a correction from the NY Times.

    Apparently the claim that the lawyers said to destroy the tapes was incorrectly stated. The House says the lawyers didn't offer advice to destroy the tapes.

    Possible confusion by the Times reporter. The damn political round about speech probably led to a mixed message.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 8:45 PM GMT
    um... i think it would be a fair assumption to say that the ny times got it right and now the administration is trying to cover their tracks.

    we, as a whole, need to wake up and start paying attention
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 8:56 PM GMT
    ...but this isn't as important as Jamie-Lyn Spears being pregnant...right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 19, 2007 9:00 PM GMT
    absolutely not... blasphemy!
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Dec 20, 2007 2:09 AM GMT
    Bush and co. understand completely that they can do literally anything they want. These people are not limited at all by conscience, morality, the law or The Constitution.
    At they end of the day, Bush and his crew of fascists know that no one will ever really have (or will be willing to use) the authority to stop them with the threat of jail or punishment of some sort.

    I saw a poster that said -- Would somebody PLEASE give Bush a blowjob, then we can impeach him!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2007 3:42 AM GMT
    Dumb? - No.

    Arrogant? - Hell Yes.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 20, 2007 10:47 AM GMT
    When this story broke a few weeks ago I said to myself

    I wonder how long it's gonna take before the White House's finger prints are all over this one?

    And Trance.... Do you really Believe that the Times got anything wrong on this? With this motley crew? Come on?
    You wanna buy an ARM too?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2007 11:42 AM GMT
    Here is the correction the NYT printed:

    Correction: December 20, 2007

    The subheading with a front-page headline on Wednesday for an article about discussions between four top White House lawyers and the Central Intelligence Agency over whether to destroy videotapes showing secret interrogations of members of Al Qaeda referred imprecisely to the White House’s position thus far on the matter. While Bush administration officials have acknowledged some discussions leading up to the destruction of the tapes in November 2005, as the article noted, the White House itself has not officially said anything on the subject, so its role was not “wider than it said.” (A related article appears today on Page A6.)

    Read it here:
    http://tinyurl.com/3c2qs6

    Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post comments:

    The White House press office responded with uncommon hostility to the Times story this morning, demanding a correction -- while conspicuously not denying the substance of the story.

    In a blistering early-morning statement, Perino wrote: "The New York Times today implies that the White House has been misleading in publicly acknowledging or discussing details related to the CIA's decision to destroy interrogation tapes.

    "The sub-headline of the story inaccurately says that the 'White House Role Was Wider Than It Said', and the story states that ' . . . the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes . . . was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.'

    "Under direction from the White House General Counsel while the Department of Justice and the CIA Inspector General conduct a preliminary inquiry, we have not publicly commented on facts relating to this issue, except to note President Bush's immediate reaction upon being briefed on the matter. Furthermore, we have not described -- neither to highlight, nor to minimize -- the role or deliberations of White House officials in this matter.

    "The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story."

    At today's mid-day briefing, Perino announced that The Times had agreed to run a correction in tomorrow's paper. But that doesn't make her argument any more sound.

    Yes, nobody in the White House has said anything of substance on the record -- but that doesn't mean there wasn't a controlled and intentional leak intended to steer reporters away. In fact, on December 7, the day after the tape story broke in the New York Times, multiple administration officials spoke to multiple reporters spreading what now appears to be a misleading narrative involving Miers.

    As Jonathan Karl reported then for ABC News: "Three officials told ABC News Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes." And CNN reported that on that same day, "two senior administration officials told CNN that then-deputy White House counsel Harriet Miers was aware of the tapes and told the CIA not to destroy them.

    "The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of potential investigations on the matter, said they believe this is 'exculpatory' for the White House because it shows a top official had told the CIA not to destroy the tapes. The officials also said the information about the tapes was not relayed to the president until this week."

    Is Perino prepared to deny that any of those sources were inside the White House? I doubt it. And for her to suggest that it is taking the high road to refuse to comment on the record about a matter of great public significance is the pinnacle of chutzpah.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2007 7:04 PM GMT
    I would like to know how this happened? How did the Bush Administration get so much power? Where is this power coming from? Is there a bigger picture here that I am not seeing? How in the hell did this happen and for 8 freaking years? It's been like a bad dream. Will the 2008 elections be any better? If the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged somehow, what's to keep it from happening again? icon_mad.gif


    Oh, obscenewish, damn that banana looks good. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 20, 2007 7:11 PM GMT
    Hm, at this point, is it really worth commenting on. Bogus elections, two wars, secret prisons, Gitmo, Katrina, SCHIP, etc.

    Is anyone still surprised by this shit?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 12:48 PM GMT
    That's the horrifying thing, Jackal. Our government has become so corrupt that what would have once been scandalous is now just another news story.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 1:46 PM GMT
    Honestly who cares!! We have to do what we can to get information from our enemys. And come on Water Boarding is not that bad. It only took like 10 to 15 minutes of waterboarding to get the information we needed from one of the people we did it too.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Dec 21, 2007 3:45 PM GMT
    I agree, TylerJock --- whose side are you people on anyway -- Ours or the terrorists who would cut off your head at the drop of a hat? Sheeeeesh!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 4:11 PM GMT
    Why don't we waterboard you for 15-20 minutes, Tyler, and see whether you really think simulated drowning isn't all that bad?

    I really think that anyone who authorizes torture techniques should have to go through them first before being legally able to authorize them. It might just make them a little bit less likely to destroy the foundations of decency that have at least somewhat lessened the horrors of war.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Dec 21, 2007 5:51 PM GMT
    Water-boarding doesn't even compare to the torture that these terrorists would (and have) inflicted on others. So they get a little water down their throat...at least their throat is left intact -- unlike the fate of say Daniel Pearl. So they go through a little momentary panic. At least the end result is that they are still alive -- unlike the panic and ultimate fate of those passengers who saw their plane headed straight for the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Sorry, but I have absolutely nooooooo sympathy for fanatical terrorists who have hijacked the muslim religion in the name of Jihad against us. If we could, I wish we could just load them all in a giant space shuttle and blast them into a one way trip to outer space.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 5:59 PM GMT
    ^All rightie then, uh next Xmas wish anyone?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 6:11 PM GMT
    "Why don't we waterboard you for 15-20 minutes, Tyler, and see whether you really think simulated drowning isn't all that bad?"

    I am not plotting to kill as many people as I can, not trying to bring down the US. God why are dems all sloppy wet pussy when it comes defending our country. And this is why I say Dems should put up the communist flag.
    What do you care about those type who are trying to kill you !! Do you really care that they are being waterboarded or worse. These people any would do way worse to you if they had you ass. What you might like that. Why don't we take off their shoes,and tickle them with feathers to get vital imformation that might save lifes. God damn !!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 6:26 PM GMT
    Tyler--

    Do you take ass lessons or is this just some kind of natural talent?

    There are no communists anymore but creepy little shmucks like you still see them under the bed.

    Oh, that's right, you're not an 18 year old after all, you're a disgusting old man, that's why you keep harping about stuff that was irrelevant 50 years ago.

    Go away.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 21, 2007 7:33 PM GMT
    dude it was a Analogy: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
    2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
    3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
    4. Linguistics. a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
    b. a form resulting from such a process.

    5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Dec 21, 2007 7:54 PM GMT
    tyler, you said, "I am not plotting to kill as many people as I can, not trying to bring down the US."

    BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THIS UNTIL WE WATERBOARD YOU??

    Really, we'll have to waterboard you to be sure we don't need to waterboard you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2007 11:22 PM GMT
    tylerjock saidHonestly who cares!! We have to do what we can to get information from our enemys. And come on Water Boarding is not that bad. It only took like 10 to 15 minutes of waterboarding to get the information we needed from one of the people we did it too.


    LOL! Was it credible information, or desperate ramblings to get you to stop?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2007 11:32 PM GMT
    LOVESICKMOTHERFUCKERLOL!


    Even though I'm the laugh track, I couldn't have said it better.