Reward Offered for Obama's birth certificate

[Topaz]

This past Sunday, Cheney was on Meet the Press and he admitted that he knew of the torturing and asked if Bush did he said of course he signed the papers! Only in America will the lower level of people go to jail while the higher ups escape, even Nixon didn't go to jail and that is why future president don't have to worry about jail time.

[jbg]

Only in America will the lower level of people go to jail while the higher ups escape, even Nixon didn't go to jail and that is why future president don't have to worry about jail time.

What Queen or even PM has been jailed? Even in Adscam which Cabinet level person's been jailed?

[M.Dancer]

What Queen or even PM has been jailed? Even in Adscam which Cabinet level person's been jailed?

Charles the 1st of England

Louis the 16th of France

PM Yvon Neptune of Haiti

PM Fujimori of Peru

PM Indira Ghandi of India

Pm Mussilino of Italy

Quisling of Norway

[KrustyKidd]

you can attempt to obfuscate by targeting Congress and the Intelligence Committee, but the time lines are clear... the Bush torture agenda was covert prior to eventual Congressional notification (oh my! Krusty, you know what that means, right?) ... and Congress was/has never been completely informed. Take it from ''Jello Jay'' himself:

I could but, both he and Pelosi were heads (deputy in his case) of both the Senate and congressional Intelligence Committee and, were in on this from the start (2002) Here, he is only attempting to cover his own ass. If you decide to catch up on current events sometime you can inform yourself as it is in the news south of the border. In this way, you will actually have information you can discuss this issue with rather than flounder in the dark like you are presently doing. This is one of the steps I was referring to earlier in my last post.

after you Alphonse...

Actually I prefer Krusty Kidd or, just plain Krusty thank you. Now, can you answer the question I posed to you earlier asking you how many enhanced interrogations took place after 2003? This would be the other step that you are lagging behind on.

[waldo]

LOL! Krusty... your scurrying about does not go unnoticed... I note the edit of your last post added/changed nothing more than a challenge to, as you say, ''find the two steps you seem to have lost'' (hopefully, you'll engage)

you can attempt to obfuscate by targeting Congress and the Intelligence Committee, but the time lines are clear... the Bush torture agenda was covert prior to eventual Congressional notification (oh my! Krusty, you know what that means, right?) ... and Congress was/has never been completely informed.

I could but, both he and Pelosi were heads (deputy in his case) of both the Senate and congressional Intelligence Committee and, were in on this from the start (2002) Here, he is only attempting to cover his own ass. If you decide to catch up on current events sometime you can inform yourself as it is in the news south of the border. In this way, you will actually have information you can discuss this issue with rather than flounder in the dark like you are presently doing. This is one of the steps I was referring to earlier in my last post.

c'mon Krusty - don't be shy... why are you always in an "after-the-fact" mode - always responding but never actually offering anything of substance. Do you like being the (Krusty) clown of mystery?

ya, ya... it wasn't torture cause the OLC pimped out to tailored requests... don't ya know... if "we" say it's not torture - why, it's not torture!

Red Cross Described 'Torture' at CIA Jails

International Committee of the Red Cross - ICRC Report on the Treatment of "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody

[KrustyKidd]

c'mon Krusty - don't be shy... why are you always in an "after-the-fact" mode - always responding but never actually offering anything of substance. Do you like being the (Krusty) clown of mystery?

Your information is wrong Waldo. Today's newspapers explain why and shows how both Pelosi and Rockefeller are seating bullets. Furthermore, how many enhanced interrogations occurred after 2003? You know, the time where Bush supposedly lied.

If you can do your research as well as come up to speed on current events you might still catch up enough to be worth having a discussion with yet.

[waldo]

Your information is wrong Waldo. Today's newspapers explain why and shows how both Pelosi and Rockefeller are seating bullets. Furthermore, how many enhanced interrogations occurred after 2003? You know, the time where Bush supposedly lied.

If you can do your research as well as come up to speed on current events you might still catch up enough to be worth having a discussion with yet.

again... with the Congress & Intelligence Committee obfuscation... but why be shy Krusty - you simply put up a link (to your reference), offer a comment or two, maybe slag someone along the way... nothing to it Krusty.

why, here's a thought! You could even actually describe "what information is wrong"... lay it out... show that you actually have a position - that you can make an argument with foundation. C'mon Krusty - you can do it... otherwise, you're just Krusty (the clown) - man of mystery!

[waldo]

details of how the Bush torture agenda exceeded OLC stated guidelines; providing evidence that the torture program was not legal, even according to the Yoo/Bybee OLC opinion:

Investigators Examining Interrogations, Legal Advice

oh Krusty... Krusty...

[jbg]

Charles the 1st of England

Louis the 16th of France

PM Yvon Neptune of Haiti

PM Fujimori of Peru

PM Indira Ghandi of India

Pm Mussilino of Italy

Quisling of Norway

Obviously I meant Canadian. Unless Charles the 1st of England counts.

[KrustyKidd]

again... with the Congress & Intelligence Committee obfuscation... but why be shy Krusty - you simply put up a link (to your reference), offer a comment or two, maybe slag someone along the way... nothing to it Krusty.

why, here's a thought! You could even actually describe "what information is wrong"... lay it out... show that you actually have a position - that you can make an argument with foundation. C'mon Krusty - you can do it... otherwise, you're just Krusty (the clown) - man of mystery!

A link to any of a thousand publications that say that Rockefeller and Pelosi headed their respective Intelligence Committees and were in attendance of the Enhanced Interrogation briefings. Then they briefed their houses and approved further funding? If you don't know that already then a link won't fix your problem. Read today's paper and then get some background on how the Congress and Senate Intelligence Committees work with classified information when it comes to funding.

Oh, almost forgot. No sanctioned Enhanced Interrogations took place after 2003 so Bush didn't lie.

Goodnight.

[waldo]

again... with the Congress & Intelligence Committee obfuscation... but why be shy Krusty - you simply put up a link (to your reference), offer a comment or two, maybe slag someone along the way... nothing to it Krusty.

why, here's a thought! You could even actually describe "what information is wrong"... lay it out... show that you actually have a position - that you can make an argument with foundation. C'mon Krusty - you can do it... otherwise, you're just Krusty (the clown) - man of mystery!

A link to any of a thousand publications that say that Rockefeller and Pelosi headed their respective Intelligence Committees and were in attendance of the Enhanced Interrogation briefings. Then they briefed their houses and approved further funding? If you don't know that already then a link won't fix your problem. Read today's paper and then get some background on how the Congress and Senate Intelligence Committees work with classified information when it comes to funding.

hey now Krusty! Nobody said anything about funding torture…

I’m now accepting to the fact you have difficulty articulating your thoughts… I will endeavor to recognize your lack of specificity as a disability challenge you continually face.

in any case… in your attempt to cloud the real issue you decided to take a round-about to include Congress/Intelligence Committee… a lame attempt to suggest due-process, inclusiveness and sanctioning of the Bush torture agenda. Those briefings you speak of were not detailed to the point of including the OLC legal opinions; Rockefeller is on record back to 2005 asking for details – asking for full disclosure… details and full disclosure that never occurred.

you also, conveniently, ignore the fact that the Bush torture agenda was in full operation, covertly, before any notification was made to Congress. In that regard, the Bush administration broke a U.S. law (Presidential Directive, “NSDD286 - Administration of US Clandestine Operations). The well established “Bush Torture Timeline” clearly shows that the torture of Abu Zubaydah completed prior to any notification to Congress of the existence of the covertly running “Bush Torture Agenda”. Again… that’s against the U.S. law, Krusty! (be careful here Krusty )

actually Krusty, your attempt to obfuscate by bringing up the Congress/Intelligence Committee angle has helped to amplify the Bush lie… thanks a bunch!

Oh, almost forgot. No sanctioned Enhanced Interrogations took place after 2003 so Bush didn't lie.

care to cite your reference to so boldly proclaim that “NO” torture took place after 2003?

Krusty, ok, ok… March 2004: Jose Padilla --- care to comment about the “destroyed” CIA tape of the torture?

CIA Destroyed Torture Tape

Krusty, ok, ok… all those so-called “high-value” detainees held in CIA Eastern European “black sites” – the guys eventually transported to GITMO once the existence of the “black sites” became known. The International Committee of the Red Cross’ (ICRC) report definitively provides details of the implementation of the “Bush Torture Agenda” that occurred in the CIA Eastern European “black sites”… occurring after 2003 and on into 2006.

ICRC Report on the Treatment of “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody

Krusty… to-date, you have failed to provide a single reference to substantiate anything you’ve said. If you can’t supply anything of substance, substantiated with citation… as I said previously... I will endeavor to recognize your lack of specificity as a disability challenge you continually face.

[KrustyKidd]

hey now Krusty! Nobody said anything about funding torture…

Nope but I said the the Congressional Intelligence Committee oks the funding tf the CIA and it's programs. Thus, in the briefings detailing the enhanced interrogation techniques they continued to fund it without restrictions and so, essentially agreed that the interrogations were not torture but rather 'enhanced interrogations.'

in any case… in your attempt to cloud the real issue you decided to take a round-about to include Congress/Intelligence Committee… a lame attempt to suggest due-process, inclusiveness and sanctioning of the Bush torture agenda. Those briefings you speak of were not detailed to the point of including the OLC legal opinions; Rockefeller is on record back to 2005 asking for details – asking for full disclosure… details and full disclosure that never occurred.

He is on tenuous ground saying he was not briefed as everybody else on those committees were according to records linked to this article. As for due process and the issue there was a presidential directive that was in force and, through Congressional and Senate approval trough the continued funding and support of same by the Senate and Congress Intelligence Committees gave support to the President to continue if necessary despite the withdrawing of legal support.

you also, conveniently, ignore the fact that the Bush torture agenda was in full operation, covertly, before any notification was made to Congress. In that regard, the Bush administration broke a U.S. law (Presidential Directive, “NSDD286 - Administration of US Clandestine Operations). The well established “Bush Torture Timeline” clearly shows that the torture of Abu Zubaydah completed prior to any notification to Congress of the existence of the covertly running “Bush Torture Agenda”. Again… that’s against the U.S. law, Krusty! (be careful here Krusty )

Is it? He is allowed to do whatever he needs to in order to protect the USA and so, did just that and enacted a directive which allowed him to do that. One that was approved through support by Congress and the Senate via their Intelligence Committees.

care to cite your reference to so boldly proclaim that “NO” torture took place after 2003?

Sure. The President of the US has a directive saying that they can carry out enhanced interrogations and he publicly said that the US does not torture despite the Red Cross saying there may be 'alleged' cases of torture. So, who are you going to believe Waldo - the President with directives and the support of Congress and the Senate or, allegations from the Red Cross and perpetrators of 911?

[waldo]

hey now Krusty! Nobody said anything about funding torture…

Nope but I said the the Congressional Intelligence Committee oks the funding tf the CIA and it's programs. Thus, in the briefings detailing the enhanced interrogation techniques they continued to fund it without restrictions and so, essentially agreed that the interrogations were not torture but rather 'enhanced interrogations.'

no, Krusty – you can make that “Bush leap of faith” (your “essentially” usage), but there most certainly was no Congressional agreement that the Bush torture agenda was not… torture. It is most entertaining to see all the Bush apologists clamouring to target/label Congress with complicity in sanctioning the Bush torture agenda – to attempt to deflect away from Bush/Cheney.

in any case… in your attempt to cloud the real issue you decided to take a round-about to include Congress/Intelligence Committee… a lame attempt to suggest due-process, inclusiveness and sanctioning of the Bush torture agenda. Those briefings you speak of were not detailed to the point of including the OLC legal opinions; Rockefeller is on record back to 2005 asking for details – asking for full disclosure… details and full disclosure that never occurred.

He is on tenuous ground saying he was not briefed as everybody else on those committees were according to records linked to this article.

excellent Krusty – thanks for (finally) linking to a reference to attempt to substantiate your claims. The fact you are referencing that CIA (unclassified) document from the TPM site is gold – real gold. You do realize TPM is one of the more prolific and methodical bloggers rooting out the Bush torture agenda timeline? You know that right?

but let’s deal with your linked to CIA (unclassified) document:

- this is the same CIA that has acknowledged the wholesale destruction of the torture tapes and your own linked to document states CTC attended the briefing… the head of CTC at the time was Jose Rodriguez – the key suspect in the CIA torture tape destruction. It is also, “generally accepted”, that Rodriguez/CTC would have led the briefing you highlight.

- since you began your obfuscation efforts to attempt to entangle Congress in complicit sanctioning of the Bush torture agenda, I believe this is now the third time I’ve posted a link to and referenced the following document… perhaps at some point you might actually read it:

RELEASE OF DECLASSIFIED NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINIONS ON THE CIA’S DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRAM

In the fall of 2002, after the use of interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah, CIA records indicate that the CIA briefed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee on the interrogation. After the change in leadership of the Committee in January of 2003, CIA records indicate that the new Chairman of the Committee was briefed on the CIA’s program in early 2003. Although

the new Vice-Chairman (

Rockefeller

) did not attend that briefing

, it was attended by both the staff director and minority staff director of the Committee.

… Krusty… as you can read from the Department of Justice’s own document… Rockefeller did not attend the briefing mentioned in your linked to CIA (unclassified) document. The “tenuous” you speak of is your failed attempt.

Rockefeller, Pelosi and Graham have all cast doubt on the CIA briefing details… they are also all on record calling for in-depth investigations to fully identify events/milestones/participants/etc., across the duration of the Bush torture agenda timeline – calling for complete accountability… which is why Cheney (and brood) are now out in full force with their torture dog&pony show.

As for due process and the issue there was a presidential directive that was in force and, through Congressional and Senate approval trough the continued funding and support of same by the Senate and Congress Intelligence Committees gave support to the President to continue if necessary despite the withdrawing of legal support.

yes Krusty – you and I have been to this point prior… although Congress wasn’t in our discussion at that time. As I stated previously, the withdrawal of the OLC legal opinions that supported the Bush directive squarely puts the onus back on Bush. Your (less than) veiled attempts to provide Bush with a “Congressional out” are a non-starter… the fact you’re doing a reach-around for that “Congressional out” speaks volumes about your concern. C’mon, man-up Krusty… have the balls to stand up for your boy on principle… embrace that Bush torture agenda – stand loud/proud for torture rather than playing the Bush weasel card with reliance on (1) trumped-up and discredited/revoked OLC opinions and (2) non-existent and/or incomplete CIA briefings to Congress. Stand loud/proud for torture Krusty!

Krusty, what your attempt to introduce a “Congressional out” for Bush does do is highlight a connection to that trumped up “darn good intelligence” used to substantiate the unwarranted U.S. invasion of Iraq. Even if one disputes the nature/detail within the described CIA briefings, the timeline of those described CIA briefings occurs after the initial covert torture events… the covert torture events that brought forward the false claims linking Iraq to al-Qaeda. Accordingly, that CIA briefing timeline limited the ability/opportunity for the Intelligence Committee/Congress to challenge the torture induced false claims of the Bush administration in it’s attempt to make a case for war with Iraq! Shame Krusty – shame!

you also, conveniently, ignore the fact that the Bush torture agenda was in full operation, covertly, before any notification was made to Congress. In that regard, the Bush administration broke a U.S. law (Presidential Directive, “NSDD286 - Administration of US Clandestine Operations). The well established “Bush Torture Timeline” clearly shows that the torture of Abu Zubaydah completed prior to any notification to Congress of the existence of the covertly running “Bush Torture Agenda”. Again… that’s against the U.S. law, Krusty! (be careful here Krusty )

Is it? He is allowed to do whatever he needs to in order to protect the USA and so, did just that and enacted a directive which allowed him to do that. One that was approved through support by Congress and the Senate via their Intelligence Committees.

no Krusty – you are wrong… and I even warned you to be careful. Even accepting to the “extraordinary circumstances” clause within NSDD286, Bush did not meet the defined obligations to give prior notice to the Intelligence Committee/Congress until well after the actual torture of Abu Zubaydah completed. Your system purposely has established checks/balances that, obviously, Bush/Cheney circumvented. As much as you appear to revel in the Bush dictatorship, most thinking Americans have come around to recognizing it as one of the darkest periods in your history.

you care to cite your reference to so boldly proclaim that “NO” torture took place after 2003?

Sure. The President of the US has a directive saying that they can carry out enhanced interrogations and he publicly said that the US does not torture despite the Red Cross saying there may be 'alleged' cases of torture. So, who are you going to believe Waldo - the President with directives and the support of Congress and the Senate or, allegations from the Red Cross and perpetrators of 911?

no Krusty – just you saying it, doesn’t make it so. I asked you to provide a citation (an established/recognized 3rd party reference) that substantiates your bold proclamation that “NO” torture took place after 2003. I gave you just 2 examples Krusty… you completely ignore the accepted 2004 circumstances/dates of the Padilla torture and you have the temerity to question the ICRC (Red Cross) by categorizing its investigation as, as you state, “allegations from the Red Cross”. Can you provide a citation that challenges the Red Cross investigation/report?

you ask me who I would believe? Seriously?

- the (Bush) Presidential directives were his own… based on the trumped-up and discredited/revoked OLC opinions

- the “supposed” Congressional support you speak to, the relevant support you reference is based upon non-existent and/or incomplete CIA briefings.

c’mon Krusty – your weasel 2-step is tiring. Just proudly accept the fact Bush lied and the good ole USofA tortured. Why not embrace it Krusty – what are you afraid of, what are you hiding from?

[KrustyKidd]

there most certainly was no Congressional agreement that the Bush torture agenda was not… torture. .

It is your responsibility to prove that Bush lied so, where was the continual staunch opposition or even rather than meek (if any) opposition then?

You do realize TPM is one of the more prolific and methodical bloggers rooting out the Bush torture agenda timeline?

I have no idea. I referred that to you to show the links to prove that the committees were briefed.

but let’s deal with your linked to CIA (unclassified) document:

RELEASE OF DECLASSIFIED NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL’S OPINIONS ON THE CIA’S DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRAM

And the third time I will say that Bush is in no way obliged to act on their recommendations as that is all they are. Opinions. See Waldo, Bush makes the directives from advice and recommendations he receives from a variety of sources, not the other way around.

In the fall of 2002, after the use of interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah, CIA records indicate that the CIA briefed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee on the interrogation. After the change in leadership of the Committee in January of 2003, CIA records indicate that the new Chairman of the Committee was briefed on the CIA’s program in early 2003. Although

the new Vice-Chairman (

Rockefeller

) did not attend that briefing

, it was attended by both the staff director and minority staff director of the Committee.

… Krusty… as you can read from the Department of Justice’s own document… Rockefeller did not attend the briefing mentioned in your linked to CIA (unclassified) document. The “tenuous” you speak of is your failed attempt.

Oh ok. So in other words, everybody else on the committees were briefed and had no problem with it except Rockefeller, who didn’t even bother getting himself up to speed for briefings he, as the Vice Chair, in any scenario certainly would have be it by reading the minutes, having a representative attend (as Pelosi did on one occasion) or, simply had a private meeting with the CIA..

Rockefeller, Pelosi and Graham have all cast doubt on the CIA briefing details… they are also all on record calling for in-depth investigations to fully identify events/milestones/participants/etc., across the duration of the Bush torture agenda timeline – calling for complete accountability… which is why Cheney (and brood) are now out in full force with their torture dog&pony show.

How strange seeing as how neither admits to being in a briefing to even see what the details were.

CIA Cheif Says Pelosi Briefed Fully

Leon Panetta

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

As I stated previously, the withdrawal of the OLC legal opinions that supported the Bush directive squarely puts the onus back on Bush.

Sure it did. It was always there as Bush makes the directives, not the OLC as it is only one source of advice hence, legal or not, once the President made the directive it was policy until challenged and brought to the floor in some manner for a vote..

the fact you’re doing a reach-around for that “Congressional out” speaks volumes about your concern. C’mon, man-up Krusty… have the balls to stand up for your boy on principle… embrace that Bush torture agenda – stand loud/proud for torture rather than playing the Bush weasel card with reliance on (1) trumped-up and discredited/revoked OLC opinions and (2) non-existent and/or incomplete CIA briefings to Congress. Stand loud/proud for torture Krusty!

To tell; the truth I’m against torture however, like Congress, the Senate, the President and the bulk of his staff as well as 71% of the Public am for accelerated interrogation techniques which leaves the level of interrogation used in the hands the person who is being questioned via their cooperation. As for outright torture itself, more than 70% of the people in the US say ‘sure’ without even batting an eye..

Even if one disputes the nature/detail within the described CIA briefings, the timeline of those described CIA briefings occurs after the initial covert torture events…

Accordingly, that CIA briefing timeline limited the ability/opportunity for the Intelligence Committee/Congress to challenge the torture induced false claims of the Bush administration in it’s attempt to make a case for war with Iraq! Shame Krusty – shame!

Waldo, this portion of the discussion isn‘t about when, where or how Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committees were informed but rather their approval or at the very least, approval through virtual lack of any strong opposition of it once they were - whenever that was as long as it was before Bush made the staement that you refer to as a lie in 2005.

As much as you appear to revel in the Bush dictatorship, most thinking Americans have come around to recognizing it as one of the darkest periods in your history

Hardly., most thinking Americans believe that this action is ok with them. Actually, according to PEW, 71% to some degree or another. With support like that, I imagine Enhanced Interrogations are a shoe in as well.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Views About Torture Remain Evenly Split

Currently, nearly half say the use of torture in dealing with suspected terrorists is often (15%) or sometimes (34%) justified; about the same proportion believes that the use of torture under such circumstances is rarely (22%) or never (25%) justified.

no Krusty – just you saying it, doesn’t make it so. I asked you to provide a citation (an established/recognized 3rd party reference) that substantiates your bold proclamation that “NO” torture took place after 2003. I gave you just 2 examples Krusty… you completely ignore the accepted 2004 circumstances/dates of the Padilla torture and you have the temerity to question the ICRC (Red Cross) by categorizing its investigation as, as you state, “allegations from the Red Cross”. Can you provide a citation that challenges the Red Cross investigation/report?

Don’t have to as the ‘International’ part of the Red Crosses title gives it away as a non American entity which is hardly inclusive to inter American policies which is what we are discussing now. The fact that you have taken international entities charges of ‘alleged’ crimes as well as the certainly biased testimony of probable terrorists (of which all is suspect as their intent is to harm the US in any way they can including slander) above the Congress, Senate, President and most of the American public. This shows your bias in this matter and, inability to close your mind to any other possibility other than Bush being wrong.

you ask me who I would believe? Seriously?.

Obviously you believe terrorists and enemy combatants. Heck, the west is evil and Qutbism is good right?

c’mon Krusty – your weasel 2-step is tiring. Just proudly accept the fact Bush lied and the good ole USofA tortured. Why not embrace it Krusty – what are you afraid of, what are you hiding from?

The onus on proving Bush a liar is not on me to defend but rather on you to prosecute. You have alleged evidence of a missing tape, foreign red Cross and terrorist suspects charging they were tortured. We have the Congress and Senate going along with these actions being classified as enhanced interrogation as well as the bulk of American society. Of course, this is relative as anybody being subjected to any form of interrogation would consider it torture to some degree (getting a bill in the mail is a form of torture to some) however, those enacting the action pick and choose what it is and, in this case, they chose not to intend it as torture but rather ’enhanced interrogation.’

Now, when Bush stated the US did not torture, did he believe, given the support of Congress, the Senate and his advisors that enhanced interrogation was interrogation or torture?

[waldo]

Krusty, you are annoyingly obtuse to the point of tedium…

as you continue to deflect (away from Bush/Cheney), suggesting that a (supposed) lack of Congressional opposition, in itself, counters any possibility of the greater “Bush torture lie”….. you brazenly ignore the fact Congress was not apprised of the details of the legal opinions supporting the Bush lie and was not briefed fully/completely to the particulars of the Bush torture agenda. You also mistakenly/purposely ignore the many calls from within Congress that sought full disclosure… full disclosure that never materialized.

And the third time I will say that Bush is in no way obliged to act on their recommendations as that is all they are. Opinions. See Waldo, Bush makes the directives from advice and recommendations he receives from a variety of sources, not the other way around.

excellent – thanks for acknowledging that Bush cherry-picked from the OLC opinions selecting only the opinion that favoured his torture agenda… you do know there were dissenting OLC opinions that argued the Bush torture agenda was unconstitutional… you now that, right? Interesting that Bush felt, as you say, “an obligation to act on those recommendations that argued (only) in favour of his torture agenda”

my reference to Rockefeller follows only your past comments that drew attention his way. You linked to an unclassified CIA document that stated he attended a CIA briefing. I showed you Department of Justice sourced proof that states otherwise. The CIA descriptions of its briefings (attendees and details) continues to come under scrutiny - daily… Pelosi, Goss, Graham, Obey, Rockefeller… have all challenged the accuracy of the CIA briefing details, suggesting the CIA's own version of when/whom it briefed is riddled with errors.

your Panetta link/quote is fine, as far as weasely non-denial denials goes… much has been written about the wording choice Panetta used; essentially, he vouches for the CIA briefing records - but not their accuracy… while designating responsibility to Congress to “evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions”.

As I stated previously, the withdrawal of the OLC legal opinions that supported the Bush directive squarely puts the onus back on Bush.

Sure it did. It was always there as Bush makes the directives, not the OLC as it is only one source of advice hence, legal or not, once the President made the directive it was policy until challenged and brought to the floor in some manner for a vote..

poor, poor deluded Krusty… your systems Constitutional separation of powers clearly allows for Presidential directives tied to the U.S. Constitution. Clearly the Bush torture agenda was following the trumped-up, tailored OLC opinions that advised the Bush torture agenda did not violate the Constitutional provisions concerning torture.

in the timeframe and events/milestones we’re describing, Bush unequivocally was aware the OLC opinion supporting his torture agenda directive was revoked within the OLC… there no longer was a supporting legal opinion to that directive. You are in a most fragile position to suggest Congress had a timely option to challenge a directive based on revoked OLC opinion… that position assumes Congress knew the details of the original OLC opinion and that the opinion was revoked. We know for a fact the OLC opinion details were not shared with Congress.

so… again… the onus was on Bush/Cheney to do the honorable thing when Bush/Cheney recognized the directive no longer had its trumped-up tailored legal support. Effectively, the principal Bush lie was amplified by another lie of omission.

As for outright torture itself, more than 70% of the people in the US say ‘sure’ without even batting an eye..

your linkee no workee… try this one from the same polling/research company: http://people-press.org/report/510/public-...-use-of-torture

Public Remains Divided Over Use of Torture

some will read whatever they want into figures… clearly – your “70% without batting an eye” doesn’t stand up even within a broad never/rarely/sometimes/often categorization.

Waldo, this portion of the discussion isn‘t about when, where or how Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committees were informed but rather their approval or at the very least, approval through virtual lack of any strong opposition of it once they were - whenever that was as long as it was before Bush made the staement that you refer to as a lie in 2005.

that same 2005 lie has been uttered many times since by Bush… you continue to ignore the dates/facts/circumstance you’ve been presented with. It is most convenient… most convenient… to recognize that the revelation of the CIA’s wholesale destruction of torture tapes occurred in 2005 “shortly after” Bush first uttered that lie. Yes, very convenient for Bush/Cheny.

C.I.A. DESTROYS INTERROGATION VIDEO TAPES

Don’t have to as the ‘International’ part of the Red Crosses title gives it away as a non American entity which is hardly inclusive to inter American policies which is what we are discussing now. The fact that you have taken international entities charges of ‘alleged’ crimes as well as the certainly biased testimony of probable terrorists (of which all is suspect as their intent is to harm the US in any way they can including slander) above the Congress, Senate, President and most of the American public. This shows your bias in this matter and, inability to close your mind to any other possibility other than Bush being wrong.

should we be surprised you would dispute the analysis/report done by a reputable independent organization… calling it “slander” no less. That ICRC (Red Cross) report was offered to you in response to your suggestion that no torture occurred after 2003… which, by laughable inference, acknowledges your recognition that torture did occur prior to 2003… torture, at least in action/deed, if not by accepted name. Again – the Bush lie: “if we don’t call it torture… well… it darn well can’t be torture”!!!

The onus on proving Bush a liar is not on me to defend but rather on you to prosecute. You have alleged evidence of a missing tape, foreign red Cross and terrorist suspects charging they were tortured. We have the Congress and Senate going along with these actions being classified as enhanced interrogation as well as the bulk of American society. Of course, this is relative as anybody being subjected to any form of interrogation would consider it torture to some degree (getting a bill in the mail is a form of torture to some) however, those enacting the action pick and choose what it is and, in this case, they chose not to intend it as torture but rather ’enhanced interrogation.’

Now, when Bush stated the US did not torture, did he believe, given the support of Congress, the Senate and his advisors that enhanced interrogation was interrogation or torture?

lol – the onus is on the American people and/or it’s leaders to push for a complete investigation into the Bush torture agenda. I expect, within the confines of security and classified information, “some form” of investigation will occur – particularly now that both the CIA and Congress are on the defensive. You can nuance the words all you’d like… at the end of the day, a smaller percentage of people will accept Cheney’s favoured EIT designation, while most will recognize it for what it was/is – torture. A Bush lie based on presumptive support… is still a Bush lie.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....lol – the onus is on the American people and/or it’s leaders to push for a complete investigation into the Bush torture agenda. I expect, within the confines of security and classified information, “some form” of investigation will occur – particularly now that both the CIA and Congress are on the defensive. You can nuance the words all you’d like… at the end of the day, a smaller percentage of people will accept Cheney’s favoured EIT designation, while most will recognize it for what it was/is – torture. A Bush lie based on presumptive support… is still a Bush lie.

Agreed.....the investigation should be at least as entertaining as Canada's Somalia Affair. Maybe VP Cheney will half-ass hang himself to satisfy the "no torture" gods.

Edited May 21, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Agreed.....the investigation should be at least as entertaining as Canada's Somalia Affair. Maybe VP Cheney will half-ass hang himself to satisfy the "no torture" gods.

Bush and Clinton will be doing a speaking tour..actually they are doing one - I believe they are in Toronto or soon to be. I would love to attend....but I won't because they charge an arm and a leg - and it would not be any fun unless Cheney was there.....I understand that Dick has been very loose in the mouth lately - must be some sort of heavenly enema he is getting - cosmic justice makes them reveal all.. So - who's investingating who here? May as well know what the thread is about - fill me in - three sentences or less - lets see what a great and condenced communicator you are BC...go!

[bush_cheney2004]

.....So - who's investingating who here? May as well know what the thread is about - fill me in - three sentences or less - lets see what a great and condenced communicator you are BC...go!

This joint was about Baby Jesus' birth certificate, but it morphed into a hard-on about torture rotting from the head. All we need to complete the ensemble is Deep Throat and Judge Sirica of Watergate fame. Some rubes think this is their entry point to getting Bush. Good luck......

[Oleg Bach]

This joint was about Baby Jesus' birth certificate, but it morphed into a hard-on about torture rotting from the head. All we need to complete the ensemble is Deep Throat and Judge Sirica of Watergate fame. Some rubes think this is their entry point to getting Bush. Good luck......

There are no entry points...so it morphed into some sort of moral examination - bit late are they not? What it is - is the "rubes" - high on the food chain are like little punks who assume that the bully is knocked down and weak...just because they leave office does not mean that they have no connections - they are ALL connected and all watch each others back - Only fools blame Bush - he's actually a nice guy...the committee that rules can never be touched - the best security is to not exist - I asked the banker buddy - "was it Bush and Cheney to blame for the down turn?" - He said it was not them - so who was it? We will never know...so Good luck to those that attack the card board cut out man...

[bush_cheney2004]

There are no entry points...so it morphed into some sort of moral examination - bit late are they not?

Even Milosevic thumbed his nose and died laughing at the spirited "do gooders". Here's the thing, the never said it doesn't torture.....it's never admits to torture!

They want Bush and Cheney so bad even a parking ticket would do.

[Oleg Bach]

Even Milosevic thumbed his nose and died laughing at the spirited "do gooders". Here's the thing, the never said it doesn't torture.....it's never admits to torture!

They want Bush and Cheney so bad even a parking ticket would do.

The simple fact that millions of Americans just love these guys and believed in them - they were heros...so maybe they should convict every fool that voted them in? I say let the past go and move ahead - just like in your personal life - If you want life and life more abundantly - let go of the past and live - going back leads to the death of a nation - march forward and improve......Bush and Cheney and every other American executive - has privledge - for over 300 years - to harm a former President is unconstitutional .. Maybe George and Dick should start quoting from the document they trashed - I hope the saved a copy.

[bush_cheney2004]

let go of the past and live - going back leads to the death of a nation - march forward and improve......Bush and Cheney and every other American executive - has privledge - for over 300 years - to harm a former President is unconstitutional .. Maybe George and Dick should start quoting from the document they trashed - I hope the saved a copy.

But that's the part these knuckleheads don't get.....so focused on Bush/Cheney that they be. "Torture", "Rendition", and "Human Rights Violations" go way, way back. Time is on Dubya's side.

[KrustyKidd]

Waldo

You can nuance the words all you’d like… at the end of the day, a smaller percentage of people will accept Cheney’s favoured EIT designation, while most will recognize it for what it was/is – torture. A Bush lie based on presumptive support… is still a Bush lie.

By most I surmise that you mean the suspected terrorists who would stop at noting to portray the US as bad to an international organization as well as the 25% of the US public who view torture as an action that should never be taken. The other 71% and the Congress/Senate and Executive who view it as cool under various circumstances most probably would go along with EI under almost all scenarios (but not torture) so I am not sure whom you mean as ‘most.’

[Guthrie]

Q - what kind of people believe this birth certificate conspiracy bull?

A - nut job nazi murderers -

James Von Brunn Apparently Part Of Obama "Birther" Movement

Among the myriad of disturbing qualities of James Von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who shot and killed a security officer inside the Holocaust Museum on Wednesday, is his apparent belief that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States and therefore has no right to the presidency.

The reason it sticks out is that, even among Von Brunn's other characteristics -- including heavy streaks of anti-Semitism, disdain for the federal government, and threads of white supremacy -- being a "birther" has a modicum of political credibility.

Certainly, the vast majority of people who are skeptical of Obama's birth in the state of Hawaii tend to be harmless conspiracy theorists. And there has been no suggestion that Von Brunn's distrust of the president's citizenship solely drove him to this violent act.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/j...l_n_214006.html

[Borg]

Q - what kind of people believe this birth certificate conspiracy bull?

A - nut job nazi murderers -

James Von Brunn Apparently Part Of Obama "Birther" Movement

Among the myriad of disturbing qualities of James Von Brunn, the 88-year-old man who shot and killed a security officer inside the Holocaust Museum on Wednesday, is his apparent belief that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the United States and therefore has no right to the presidency.

The reason it sticks out is that, even among Von Brunn's other characteristics -- including heavy streaks of anti-Semitism, disdain for the federal government, and threads of white supremacy -- being a "birther" has a modicum of political credibility.

Certainly, the vast majority of people who are skeptical of Obama's birth in the state of Hawaii tend to be harmless conspiracy theorists. And there has been no suggestion that Von Brunn's distrust of the president's citizenship solely drove him to this violent act.

...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/j...l_n_214006.html

A pretty broad brush you paint with - it will go to court - not all are as you say

Borg