This is a block buster. Former Sen.(D)Bob Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told David Shuster that he never was briefed about waterboarding by the CIA on MSNBC. He also said that he was never allowed to take real notes about the CIA briefings, but he did log the topics and the amount of times he was briefed. They don't match up with the CIA's version. And of course, George "Slam Dunk" Tenet's outfit never was wrong or misled us before. James Fallows backs up Graham's honesty and integrity by the way. And Graham also sees the real motives behind the smearing of Pelosi. As he says it's an attempt to shift the blame away the Bush administration and their use of torture.
Graham: David, when I was briefed about three weeks after The Speaker, the subject "waterboarding" never came up. Nor did the treatment of Abu-Zubaydah or any other specific detainee.
Shuster: And that's significant because by the time of your briefing and the Speaker's briefing we now know that Zubaydah had been waterboarded 83 times, so again was their a requirement, was it incumbent on the CIA to tell you as the Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee or a ranking member, was there an obligation on them to tell you what was going on?
Graham: Yes, they're obligated to tell the full Intelligence Committee not just the leadership. This was the same time, within the same week in fact that the CIA was submitting their National Intelligence Estimate or NIE report on WMD's in IRAQ which proved so erroneous that we went to war and that have had thousands of persons killed and injured as a result of misinformation.
David, I think fundamentally what's happening is there's an attempt underway to try and shift the discussion away from what's really important and that is did the US use torture? Was that within the law? Who authorized and what were the consequences of that. Those are the important issues. Whether The Speaker or anybody else knew about it is frankly sort of off on the edges.
Graham blasts the CIA for also misleading us in the IRAQ WAR, but they would never try to mislead Pelosi or smear her now. He also calls for a Truth Commission on Torture. Can Republicans now keep denying that we need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all this torture business?
Greg Sargent broke this story:
Former Senator Bob Graham, who received a classified briefing on terror detainees during the same month in the fall of 2002 as Nancy Pelosi, was not briefed about the use of either waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques during the meeting, he claimed in an interview with me.
Graham’s assertion — his first public comments since the release of the intelligence document detailing torture briefings given to members of Congress — directly contradicts the document’s claim that he had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Graham is now the second Dem official to deny on the record the document’s contents and raises questions about its claim that Pelosi had been told, which she has denied.
“I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” Graham told me by phone moments ago, in a reference to the terror suspect who had been repeatedly waterboarded the month before.
Graham is the only other Dem aside from Pelosi to get briefed in 2002, so they are both in effect asserting that no Dem was briefed on the use of EITs that year. The date of the next briefing was in February 2003.
Graham claimed he would have remembered if he’d been told about the use of torture. “Something as unexpected and dramatic as that would be the kind of thing that you would normally expect to recall even years later,” he said.
And here's more by Fallows on Graham:
Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the "threats" posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. "Blood is going to be on your hands," he warned those who voted yes.
More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He's sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he's never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)
So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn't. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn't prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof.
You'll notice that the media always has no problem attacking Pelosi. Is it because she's a liberal or a women or both? When the truth comes out, she'll face up to what she did or did not do, but the media would never let a political party shift the debate like this away from the central issue of torture to the time frame Pelosi might or might not have been briefed on it. They already tortured the detainees and Pelosi had no hand on their policy decisions.
I saw this interview today as it happened. I have absolutely no reason in the world to question Bob Graham's honesty. He's a down to earth honest statesman. He's more of a statesman than a politician. While he was governor of Florida, Florida was in good hands.
If Graham says he didn't get briefed, he didn't get briefed.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
that is what they have been about since the carter administration.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
They tried to make him out as some deranged man when he ran for president because he kept a notebook of everything he did all day long. Of course now we have notebooks that just about everyone keeps of everything they do all day long and today they call it Twitter.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Bringing out the patriot card as usual. How dare Pelosi attack "Our terror fighters". Give it rest Kit. Look at the history of the CIA. They're not the most honest organization this government has. This coming from the same group of people screaming support our troops yet they continue to blame our troops for the Abu Ghraib when even a Bipartisan study has proven it came from the highest levels of the government. Shut the hell up Kit.
is intended to be a factual statement
Why would anyone trust a "spy". They are trained to lie. That's their job.
the CIA is filled with spies loyal to the Bush family. I'm sure Pappy's got many friends in the shadows.
by the Nixon gang. Nixon also put a patsy in as head of the FBI. Thank goodness 2nd in command Mark Phelps (Deepthroat) saw what was going on an did the right thing with Bob Woodward.
The CIA has not been anything except illegal since the Ike years.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
CIA is the lapdog of BushSr. Who was IT's HEAD in 1963???? BUSHSENIOR.
you don't do anyone, yourself included, any favours by dishing up crap and falsehoods.
me-oww!
They're trained to make you believe someone other than who they are.
Lower the retirement age.
George W Bush stating that the CIA Intelligence was "misleading" when it came to information regarding WMD's in Iraq. Bush claimed that the CIA lied to him.
someone will bring this up during one of the many times this is covered on the 24/7 media!
How dare this guy lie to protect Nancy Pelosi? That's got to be what's going on here because Sean Hannity already told me that she was lying and pretty much outlined for me what she was told.
In case it was missed my tounge was planted firmly in my cheek when this comment was typed!
I wonder what the attacks on Mr. Graham will look like!
Immersing him into milk until he goes crackers
And soggy?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Gee... who controlled the House and the Senate in 2002 and 2003... Repubs. Nancy was not in a position to do anything even if she did have all the information. The obstructionist Repubs would have never let her get any kind of ruling or resolution to the floor for debate.
Isn't it true that the leadership (of both parties) and the ranking majority and minority members of the intelligence committee who are briefed by the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) are sworn to secrecy about the info they are given?
If so, it would've been illegal for Pelosi--or anyone else who was briefed--to divulge that information.
That's been my contention all along. If she had gone public with classified information I have a feeling she would have been in the most serious of trouble.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
It is about what she should do now to empower a full investigation by the House. No waiting (or hiding)
behind the Senate waiting for a Truth of Consequences Commission.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
It is clear we need a thorough criminal investigation OUTSIDE Congress. A special prosecutor MUST be named here because there are too many potential lawbreakers within both parties.
The way I see this, it is turning into a bigger quagmire with every passing day (and post).
We need to get to the truth. "What did you know and when did you know it?" All these Congress members have copious notes regarding what they do every day.
With the exception of the C.I.A., it should be pretty freakin' easy to figure out the answers to the above questions, especially if the special prosecutor has subpoena power, which I am sure he/she will have.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Pelosi might not have been able to single-handedly scuttle the program herself back then, but is there any evidence that she even tried? And how is it that she was told of the waterboarding techniques 3 weeks before Graham's meeting and yet it did not get back to him? Graham, like Pelosi, is not being straight here.
And how about Leon Panetta's memo to the CIA staff, which was released to the press today, that stated, unequivocally, that the CIA did not mislead any members of Congress on this. The CIA's history notwithstanding, do people think that one of the top officials in Obama's administration is willing to lie to smear Pelosi or that Obama is looking to create an unnecessary and damaging rift with the Democratic Speaker of the House?
Bob Graham isn't lying. He has no reason to and he wouldn't do that just to protect Pelosi.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I didn't say Graham was lying. He's just uninformed. Him saying he did not know in no way proves that Pelosi didn't know. He stated that waterboarding never even came up in his meeting while Pelosi does not at all deny that it was discussed.
Do you think Leon Panetta is lying?
"Graham, like Pelosi, is not being straight here."
That sorta sounds like you are saying he's lying.
I don't know as much about Panetta, but I do know he worded his message very carefully.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
That probably could have been worded a little more clearly. I'm not saying he's necessarily lying, but his claim of not being told certainly proves nothing about Pelosi's meeting, which he did not attend.
That said, he would certainly have a reason to lie if he felt that it would take pressure off of Pelosi. Politicians do that sh*t all the time.
He didn't have anything to do with the CIAeda back then
I was aware of your sarcasm.
If Hannity said it it must be true. He's a man of values and has never lied...caught lying...caught lying and admitted to it. Ahh to hell with it. Anytime Hannity opens his mouth it's a lie.
is intended to be a factual statement
Hannity is the know all / see all god of the Universe.
I say start at the top and work our way down to wherever it leads us.
And the only way to do that is with a full investigatory committee, with full subpoena power, and no promises of non-prosecution.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
investigation by a Select Committee of the U.S. House. Much like Watergate was investigated by a Select Committee of the U.S. Senate.
If she has the power she thinks she does, the House should grant her request.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I'm not sure if the comparison to Watergate is the best one. Yeah, the Senate twiddled its thumbs and did its damnedest to ignore the whole Watergate mess until they had no choice - public sentiment turned against the Nixon administration, and an 'investigation' suddenly was a good idea.
If we'd had real, honest-to-goodness investigative reporters still on the scene for the last 8 years or so, I think things would have unfolded very differently. I feel cheated. Woodward & Bernstein have been replaced with O'Reilly & Hannity.
I'm sure it has been said before but the "focus" on Pelosi is the threat to keep from having the torture hearings or procecutions.
It doesn't matter if Pelosi or Congress knew about it back in 2002
...he uses big words like 'particularly' and 'delicatessen.' -- Jack
The Repubs completely controlled our government so what Nancy Pelosi knew at that time is irrelevant.
House Select Committee to Investigate Intelligence and the War on Terror.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
One of the major planks in this argument is that Bush, his staff and the CIA were carrying out such heinous acts in secret and that had such fine upstanding members of Congress known, they would have done something, anything, to stop it. Ya know, because they are so opposed to the torture of suspected terrorists. As it turns out, they did know, but they didn't do something, anything, about it. Pelosi certainly isn't to be held as culpable as Bush and any others who might have broken laws, but she's certainly not being truthful when she says she knew nothing. That is why there will be no meaningful investigation of this affair.
Anybody who thinks that one party is ethical and correct all of the time, while the other party is just the opposite is a chump.
There are bad to rotten apples in each party but that doesn't mean all the apples in each party are rotten.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Don't forget that this information was CLASSIFIED at the time by BushCo and if Pelosi would've come forward and divulged anything she could have been held on charges of TREASON under the Patriot Act!
For the republicans to comveniently forget this is obviously a cover-up in itself.
She could have put her objections in writing and sent a letter to the President like Jane Harmon did. Of course, Pelosi now claims to have been behind that letter too, she just must have forgotten to sign it. Whoops! Wait, why would she send a letter opposing an issue she didn't know about?
How is it that Harmon and Pelosi knew about this while Graham, ranking Dem on the Intelligence Committee, was completely out of the loop?
Thou shall not bear false witness,lying sacks of shit?
Nearly the whole gop congress has admitted they ok'd torture which caused the murder of hundreds and is a war crime INDICT THEM NOW
.
Funny,
These Congress people are now using the word TORTURE as if the term implies something legal happened. It's the normalization of the term TORTURE that really gets me.
People, if it's an illegal action you're discussing and you are an authority in a position to do something, saying nothing about accountability does your position no good but make you look like a bag of hot air.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
If the media keeps using the term murder, will it normalize the taking of another person's life? We need to keep the focus on the horrors of torture. The Repubs are not gaining in popularity. They are reaching for straws and so far, it's a losing game for them. Look who they have representing them... old white men with old white ideas.
The correct analogy is if the media kept EXCUSING murder...
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
And who knew when is a diversionary tactic by the Repubs and their friends in the media. I call it the "Britney Spears/Runaway Bride" syndrome.
.
All this talk about a crime...
... And no action!
The Rule of Law be damned in America...
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Did you watch the video at the top of the post?
That IS action.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Didn't see action. What did you see that I missed?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
The issue is supposed to be the investigation torture by the Bush administration, and holding those Bush administration officials responsible for sanctioning and committing torture accountable. Now the Republicans have successfully shifted the entire torture debate to a silly sideshow about Nancy Pelosi. It's bad enough when the media (predictably) fall into this trap, but when Democrats do so, it's much worse. Once again, the Republicans have beaten us badly in the all-important message war, and they must be laughing at us.
Please...
... Pelosi could move on toward investigations rather than defend her incompetence.
Well, she could. But is she?
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
off the table.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Oh, that's right. Makes her defense more plausible, YES?
/snark
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Feed Americans.
Republicans win.
You note how easy it is to manipulate/shift an argument from the REAL investigation of the bush admin!
Now this 3-way denial around a side effect of bush crimes which it is hoped will evaporate the original point of investigation.
We are put together like goldfish at feeding time and that is our undoing. We gobble whatever the MSM dumps into the tank. Best recent example, H1N1 fiasco...my my what happened to that epidemic that gave a windfall to drug companies? That was just 2 wks ago!
Passed like a dream didn't it, as though it never happened.
Even C&L falls for it and lost the way on the real story opting instead to play directly where thugs wanted this story to go...right into the sandbox hitting one another with little pails & shovels.
So so easy.
seems to be what the Bushies are trying to set up as their defense. I hope it blows up in their collective faces in the form of a full-blown investigation. The Truth shall make them pee.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Get the Attends ready.
Depends.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
(Are we in a Beatles movie?)
It's too bad that we are depending on someone who is not even in Congress anymore to start fighting back. Apparently DEMS are now on record saying even with Franken, they will not be able to pass a lot of meaningful legislation. Is it 2009 or 2002, I can't remember:
http://yellingatthemoon.com/2009/05/15/spinel...
and no matter what majority the 'dems' have, they will generate excuses. Or....
Ben Nelson and the conservadems will hose everything. or.....
the DLC/DSCC/DCCC will have some excuse to screw things up on behalf of their corporate donors.
we have a lot of work to do.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
I think this may bring down the CIA. During the Bush administration the CIA were woefully inadequate if not incompetent. This is true during the Clinton administration as well. After the breakup of the Soviet Union the CIA didn't know what they were doing or why. Now Paneta has no idea what the truth is. Jesus the CIA don't even want him there, why would you trust what they tell him. Is there any doubt that the people in the CIA would lie to him to save their butts? If they tell the truth and admit what they did wrong they are screwed. If they lie about it and get away with it they save their butts. If they get caught lying they are in the same boat that they would have been in if they admitted that they lied to Congress. (I hope this makes sense)
selling Nancy down the tubes?
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Because he has to defend the CIA otherwise they may kill him or at least he would have no respect inside the agency he is the head of. If he has no respect from them then he might as well not have the job. To do that job he has to have total respect and if he goes against them, if he contradicts what they think they need to lie about he is worthless inside the Agency. (I didn't say that very well)
Was anyone pressing Panetta for a statement on this issue? I don't think so. Panetta certainly could have kept quiet and no one would have questioned him doing so. These events took place more than 6 years before he came to the CIA. Don't you think Panetta would require a little proof of the contents of those meetings before he went out and made statements that could potentially damage Obama's relationship with members of his own party in Congress. But at some point, the guy IS the Director of the CIA and morale there has to be miserable even without another claim of dishonesty or incompetence.
This absolutely will not bring down the CIA. And Panetta was never in danger of losing the respect of the agency, much less being murdered, had he not released such a memo.
that they didn't follow thier policy at that time
congress,Well maybe then they are not following policy (i.e.a non lie lie)
It wasn't the CIA. They did what they were told by Prez Bush and Security Advisor Rice.
Geez, did Cheney open you up on yourself?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Watching this debate over who knew what when is hilarious. Here we have Nancy Pelosi and Bob Graham having to defend themselves against the CIA. Isn't this the same CIA that told the administration Sadaam having weapons was a "Slam Dunk". These people, at the behest of Dick Cheney, produced an intelligence report full of lies and allowed this to presented to the American people as truth. And now we are to take their word they were "Gosh Gee Honest" with Pelosi. These people lied to the entire nation and world, and on this one issue, the Regressive Party has managed to convince the media and enough chicken shit Democrats to, once again, wander off the beaten path into neverland. What the hell has this country come to. We are stuck in an illegal war in Iraq with thousands of our soldiers dead and maybe up to a million Iraqis, and still yet over 4 million more displaced, all on the word of the CIA, and yet we are now to believe this intelligence as it existed in the year 2002 is sacrosanct and can't be challenged. Really! No wonder America is as fucked up as it is. We have a country full of morons, and the biggest morons are running the country.
Yup
I'm sorry, but the so-called 9/11 Commission was anything but impartial and independent. It's been pretty well documented that both the information it was given by the CIA and the conclusions it reached about this info was a whitewash.
Therefore, setting up some kind of "independent investigation" similar to the 9/11 Commission will simply result in a waste of time and money. The only way to do this is through an independent counsel appointed by the AG. And even that may not get to the bottom of this mess. Too many powerful people and agencies pointing fingers.
...Like they do Pelosi? NOPE....It helps that she's a DFH too...
I think if the media even mentions him at all they will just blow him off as some weird guy who kept and keeps lots of notebooks.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
DFH? I think it helps that she is a woman and a Liberal and from San Francisco. They may just attack Graham too if he speaks up more and is on a few more shows.
So will this be the top story on the Sunday talk shows or will the subject be cheney and torture? My money would be on the subject of Pelosi and little to nothing said about torture being illegal.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
That is why we, because I believe they read this page, have to let them know that they need to change the subject back to Cheney and torture. Any Democrat who gets on a Sunday show has to change the topic back to Cheney and torture by saying that the Republicans have turned the tables. "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain."
And they need to say that FIRST - not after defending Pelosi.
In fact, maybe not even try to defend Pelosi. Simply say "the way Pelosi was mislead, lied to and lied about is a whole nuther topic."
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
McJoan has a really good post up at Kos about this.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
When will Blue America take up the cause of creating a House Select Committee on Intelligence Surrounding the War on Terror? Put the grassroots to work instead of bitching and moaning.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
are we talking about the same pelosi who when she took over the speaker of the house declared [ impeachments off the table] just wondering ?as i recall many here wanted her neck for that!heh heh!
From the Office of the President
Statement from President Barack Obama*
In light of former Vice-President Cheney's recent appearances and statements and the confusion subsequently surrounding them - not to mention the intense political bickering that has ensued - I have informed the Justice Department that I hereby direct them, effective immediately, to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor, who shall retain full investigative powers, and begin a full and thorough investigation into the practices and policies of the former administration in regards to their handling of detainees held in our custody and in other countries abroad and other ancillary matters. I have told Director Holder personally to appoint someone of great integrity and who is free from political bias.
I simply cannot allow any alledged or suggested misdeeds of this nature of the former administration to stain my administration and slow us down or inhibit us from accomplishing the good work that I intend to accomplish. This was not an easy decision for me but no one can be above the law. There can be no excuses. The soul of our great country depends on our belief in and adherence to the law.
Thank you and God Bless America.
[*Not an actual statement from President Obama]
Oh never mind I missed the last part,To busy hopeing I guess,Should have known better than to think he would do something good like that
someone robs a store. somebody sees it. it comes out later somebody sees it so the investigation focuses on the person who saw the robbing rather than the person who actually did the robbing.
makes sense to me!
It's more like this:
Two acquaintances walk into a store and start browsing the aisles. #1 leans over to #2 and says, "I think it's ok to rob stores and this store needs to be robbed." To which #2 says, "Oh, let me get the door for you! I won't tell a soul."
#2 then goes on to extol the virtues of her anti-store-robbing philosophy.
Later on still, #2 says, "I'd never consort with store robbers and knew nothing of such a crime!" Then it's revealed that the whole exchange and robbery was caught on tape, to which #2 responds, "Well, he said he was a robber and was going to rob this store, but I couldn't be sure he really meant THIS store!"
Fin
According to republicans...
Lying to start a war is OK
Torturing someone to get a false confession to back up the phoney war is OK
5000 American troops have been killed because of this lie and it's OK
40,000 troops have been permanently disabled and had their families torn apart because bush and cheney lied and that's OK
America became a torture nation and is hated around the world more than before and that is OK
Outing a CIA agent was OK
Cheney can brag on tv every day that we tortured and he is proud of it and that is OK
Apparently we don't need investigations into any of the above actions. What we need is an investigation to find out if Pelosi knew. They certainly have their priorities straight don't they?
I feel a "Special Comment" coming.
Just for the record I don't know whether Pelosi is telling the truth or not. If she's lying put her on trial too.
We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through Congress.
- Will Rogers
I believe the CIA is lying through their teeth and did so for an excuse for the Bush criminals to start thier sick war.
Here we have many violations of the law and the repukes have their panties in a wad over who listened to hearings. So typical. I would say they are bullies and sissies.
It's absolutely true that the CIA said-Perlosi said kerfuffle is a distraction. But let's please be honest and not forget for one second that an enormous amount of us were begging, pleading for a Democrat -- any Democrat -- to stand up and fight. Instead, we got a panty-waisted minority who cowered every time Dick Cheney flinched. Whether or not they had this or that sliver of information ignores this.
So let's not go too far. It ain't exactly like the Dems took every personal or political risk to stop what was going on.
You've got to watch these snakes. Rethuglicans are all demagogues who lie to the sheep who mindlessly vote for them because they talk pretty.
Of course they are playing politics with this vital issue to the future of our country. Nice try fools, it won't work.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Porter Goss was the chairman of that committee that Pelosi and Grahmm were on in 2002. I haven't seen a peep out of him. Goss is an interesting player to me in all this because I think he is dirty as they come. Mostly in part due to his association with people like Dusty Foggo. On the same day that Goss was replaced as head of the CIA Dusty Foggo resigned from the position Goss appointed him to.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=1938864&page=1
Peas in a pod?
Foggo was sentenced to 3 years in prison back in February for defrauding the U.S. Government. Well how about we start connecting some dots. Anyone want to bet that Goss had stock in halliburton back in 2002? I haven't checked yet but I think Goss is skating and it would just take a little bit of digging to connect some dots.
Leon is just trying to build back morale at the CIA. I don’t think everyone would believe that the CIA is above reproach and incapable of lying especially during the Bush/Cheney years. Do we remember the Iraq war for Pete sake?
Sen. Graham’s statement is powerful and significant but it is being ignored by the msm because it doesn’t fit into the narrative and meme they are trying to tell about Pelosi. The msm has no time for the facts and investigative journalism in this story. They only have time to spew what the republicans want them to spew
Other Dems. need to standup and support Pelosi, against this vicious attack from the Right. You know they are following the talking points when every last one of them says the same thing.
In a Senate hearing the other day, when they FBI agent who got the info without torturing, from Zabaydah, made Lyndsay Graham look stupid, Graham's only defense was to bring up Graham's name.
sellin the pups. That's where the other Dems are.
me-oww!
The CIA
destroyed more than 92
interrogation tapes...
somebody
was trying to
hide something?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7919579.stm
destroy evidence,
maybe?
it's great the senator is being open and honest about what he was told. how about he do it under oath? Or in a committee meeting investigation?
but to read a little more into what the Senator says about shifting the discussion. how many remember what was the big, heated topic that we were all up in arms about 6 weeks ago? Wasn't it the banks and the problems in our economy with Wall Street looting main street? What happened to that? Could it be that there have been attempts at shifting the discussion from that to this whole waterboarding/torture thing? Don't get me wrong, the torture thing is bad too and needs to be investigated and prosecuted. But at a critical time in the banking situation, release of the stress test information, when public opinion is demanding that things be fixed and those that defrauded main street be removed from their cushy jobs, we kindly are being made to forget about it so that we can be told torture is okay.
Comments are closed on this entry