Watching The Detectives Watching Videotape

I love a mystery - DoJ lawyers involved in the Moussai trial told a judge they had watched videotape of CIA interogations in 2007.

Mightn't these be tapes of non-enhanced interrogations?  Or were they watching the tapes that were supposedly destroyed in 2005?

MORE:  If I had to guess, I would bet these were tapes of conventional interrogations.  So why weren't they destroyed for "security reasons" as well?  Who knows?  But the Times did note these tapes in their initial story on this:

In exchanges involving the Moussaoui case, the C.I.A. notified the United States attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., in September that it had discovered two videotapes and one audio tape that it had not previously acknowledged to the court, but made no mention of any tapes destroyed in 2005.

The acknowledgment was spelled out in a letter sent in October by federal prosecutors that amended the C.I.A.’s previous declarations involving videotapes. The letter is heavily redacted, with sentences identifying the detainees blacked out.

Signed by the United States attorney, Chuck Rosenberg, the letter states that the C.I.A.’s search for interrogation tapes “appears to be complete.”

LATE UPDATE: From the Dec 22 Times, last paragraphs:

Government officials have said that the videos destroyed in 2005 were the only recordings of interrogations made by C.I.A. operatives, although in September government lawyers notified a federal judge in Virginia that the agency had recently found three audio and video recordings of detainees.

Intelligence officials have said that those tapes were not made by the C.I.A., but by foreign intelligence services.

At least they worked it a bit.

Comments

[Other Tom]

I love this mystery too. And I love it most of all because as it unravels, the world is going to learn the extent to which senior Congressional knowledge knew about all of this stuff for so long and said not a word. Not a bloody word.

[Appalled Moderate]

Reading the memo, it sounds like the recordings were recently uncovered. Could it be the CIA did not destroy them because they had already lost them?

OT, I'm with you on the Dem leadership. My wife has a saying from her Daddy: "No matter who you elect, the government lways get in." It seems operative here.

[Neo]

You can bet that this story has the conspiracy theories going.

[kim]

It's Bush's fault the adviser didn't stop the gunman.
===============================

[Topsecretk9]

“Well, I think there might have been concern that those tapes could have been called for by some outside body and the CIA would no longer maintain control over them,” said retired CIA officer John Brennan, who is now a CBS News consultant.

Brennan says Rodriguez was also worried the Justice Department was backing away from its earlier support of harsh interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.

“And that therefore agency officers who participated in those interrogation sessions may be subject to some type of prosecution,” Brennan said.

Rodriguiz ordered the tapes destroyed without telling then-CIA director Porter Goss and against the advice of the CIA’s own general counsel, the White House deputy counsel and the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee...Former CIA officer John Kiriakou led the raid, which captured the al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah, told CBS News he and at least one other CIA officer refused to use the harsh interrogation techniques.

That job, he said, was turned over to retired commandos under contract to the CIA.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/10/eveningnews/main3604018.shtml

[MayBee]

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

from ABC

[Topsecretk9]

Maybee

Kiriakou's version of the intelligence gathered from Abu Zubaydah is at odds with Suskind's and The One Percent doctrine

[MayBee]

Toppers-
Spoon feed me! How are they different?
I think it's interesting that we're always hearing that torture doesn't work.

My big complaint in all of this is that anyone pretends this was an easy choice, a clear cut moral choice, and that Bush made it just because he has a desire to torture people.

[Topsecretk9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah

Simon & Schuster published a book titled The One Percent Doctrine authored by Ron Suskind. In the book, Suskind writes that sources in the intelligence community revealed to him that Abu Zubaydah knew nothing about the operations of al-Qaeda, but rather was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics such as travel for wives and children. Suskind notes that Zubaydah turned out to be mentally ill, keeping a diary "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. The book also quotes Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, telling a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." According to Suskind, this judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," yet two weeks later Bush gave a speech and labeled Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." Suskind also writes about how the CIA abused Zubaydah to get him to talk.[16]

However, one anonymous counterterrorism official criticized Suskind's book, telling the Washington Times "A lot of information is simply wrong." The unnamed official told the Times that Zubaydah was "crazy like a fox" and was a senior planner inside al Qaeda who has provided critical information on how Osama bin Laden's group works.[17] And John McLaughlin, former acting CIA director, has also stated, "I totally disagree with the view that the capture of Abu Zubaydah was unimportant. Abu Zubaydah was woven through all of the intelligence prior to 9/11 that signaled a major attack was coming, and his capture yielded a great deal of important information."[18]

In an interview with the Washington Times, Suskind stood by his book, saying "[Bush] clearly oversold the importance of the first major capture. That is undeniable." He maintained that Zubaydah was in fact crazy, stating that "The real debate now is how democracy is really challenged in terms of transparency and accountability when it is fighting a war that will largely be conducted going forward in secrecy." When asked specifically by Wolf Blitzer about the useful information Zubaydah allegedly provided, Suskind replied, "I show in the book exactly the useful information he provided, and at the same time I show that essentially what happened is we tortured an insane man and jumped screaming at every word he uttered, most of them which were nonsense."[18] In an interview with Salon.com, Suskind stated "we did get some things of value from Abu Zubaydah. We found out that 'Muktar' -- the brain, that's what it means in Arabic -- was Khalid Sheik Mohammed. That was valuable for a short period of time for us. We were then able to go through the SIGINT [signal intelligence], the electronic dispatches over the years, and say, 'OK, that's who 'Muktar' is."[19]

[MayBee]

Toppers-
Spoon feed me! How are they different?
I think it's interesting that we're always hearing that torture doesn't work.

My big complaint in all of this is that anyone pretends this was an easy choice, a clear cut moral choice, and that Bush made it just because he has a desire to torture people.

[Topsecretk9]

• Suskind writes that sources in the intelligence community revealed to him that Abu Zubaydah knew nothing about the operations of al-Qaeda

• "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." According to Suskind, this judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," yet two weeks later Bush gave a speech and labeled Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States."

• Suskind also writes about how the CIA abused Zubaydah to get him to talk.[16]

Bullet #2 sounds remarkably like Niger becoming the entire continent of Africa in Lib's minds.

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

[Topsecretk9]

Oh Maybee

and

said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

[Soylent Red]

TSK9:

Just have to tell you how much you rock. Just outstanding posts lately.

[Topsecretk9]

Soylent Red

I'm blushing. And NO, you ROCK!

[MayBee]

tops and soy rock!

Thanks for the Suskind info, tops. Hmmm....I wonder what the discrepancy is there. Where it comes from, I mean. On the one hand, Kiriakou may feel that he can come clean and influence people's opinions by presenting the story one way.
OTOH, Suskind's anonymous sources may have had their own agenda.

But yeah, 35 seconds of non-life threatening panic, and they got good information. Who can pretend that isn't a huge dilemma for the President of the US, who is primarily responsible for keepng the citizens safe. Who had just undergone an unprecedented attack on our nation, and who was getting the old "What did the President Know and When did he know it?".
I don't mind people disagreeing with his ultimate choice, but I can't stand people thinking it would be an easy one.

[Topsecretk9]

">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/10/politics/animal/main3604355.shtml"> Kevin Drum talks about the differences too

and really, can't make it up... What George Bush Didn't Say About Guantanamo., Guess who?

If we had to rely solely on the word of George W. Bush about the progress in the war on terrorism and the value of information obtained from Muslim prisoners in U.S. custody we would be in trouble. Bush's speech today from the White House was both self-serving and misleading. I give the President credit for one thing--he's a great propagandist....According to Bush, secret prisons and torture have kept America safe. Not entirely true. While fessing up to the secret prisons, one of the critical things Bush failed to tell the American people was that CIA interrogators learned the hard way that torture was not an effective interrogation method. Books written by Jim Risen and Ron Suskind during the past two years provide compelling accounts that torture against people, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohamad (KSM), was ineffective. Suskind recounts that KSM, one of the masterminds behind the 9-11 attack, was waterboarded--a technique designed to make you feel like you are drowning.

Brian Ross reported that KSM broke in about a minute and a half...

It is believed that waterboarding was used on fewer than five "high-value" terrorist subjects, and had not been used for three to four years.

Its most effective use, say current and former CIA officials, was in breaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, who subsequently confessed to a number of ongoing plots against the United States.

A senior CIA official said KSM later admitted it was only because of the waterboarding that he talked.

Ultimately, KSM took responsibility for the 9/ll attacks and virtually all other al Qaeda terror strikes, including the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

"KSM lasted the longest under waterboarding, about a minute and a half, but once he broke, it never had to be used again," said a former CIA official familiar with KSM's case.

Fewer than 5 people is 4 or less in my book and roughly 2 minutes 5 seconds of waterboarding between 2 of them...KSM was the longest at a minute and half...so we've been looking at roughly 3 minutes of waterboarding total?

And do you notice the Suskinds and Suskind hypers unique twisting of the intelligence?

[Topsecretk9]

Drum link

Guess Who link and I didn't grab all of what I meant to from it

Bush, being Bush, can't help himself and fills his speech with genuine bad guys and hapless souls who had no means or ability to carry out terrorist attacks. Iyman Faris, for example, is once again trottted out as an Al Qaeda terrorist who was going to take down the Brooklyn Bridge. Yet, subsequent investigation demonstrated he was a man of wild dreams with no competence to harm the bridge. He was the type of guy who could be conned into buying it, but he had trouble blowing up balloons.

[cathyf]

I am a fan of both Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" and the show "Cash Cab." In the former, Jay goes out and asks "random" people on the street answers to simple questions, which they are appallingly ignorant of. In the latter, random people get into a NYC taxicab, which turns into a quiz show, with hard questions, and the contestants do impressively well on.

So, somebody is clearly faking it. What do you think -- are the smart people faking stupidity? Or are dumb people faking intelligence?

Ok, so there are two possibilities... 1) Zubaydah was a low-level guy who didn't know anything important, who was tortured and so he made up stories to make the torture stop. (Just like all those people who say torture doesn't work claim.) By a series of dozens and dozens of weird coincidences, Zubaydah just happened to make up stories which happened to be true and checked out. 2) Zubaydah had extensive knowledge of AQ operations and plans, broke after 35 seconds (geesh -- can you call it "torture" if it only lasted 35 seconds? "Oh, but it seemed like a whole minute!" I've had dental work that was more grueling than that, and I was paying for the privilege!), and then after he broke he took comfort in wacky fantasies. So, what do you think?

I know that it's politically incorrect to be judgemental, but I think that you have to be somewhat mentally ill to be a terrorist, especially a jihadi one. And so I can well believe that when a whacko has this self image of being some big tough hero and then he breaks after 35 seconds that he be driven crazy by the attempt to reconcile the delusion with reality.

[Topsecretk9]

I'm sure the CIA will blame Bush, but it will be at odds with the so-called "pressure" and "twisting" to do this or that by the White House they conjured up to cover their incompetence the last go arounds.

[Soylent Red]

CathyF:

Your whole post hinges on the notion that high level terrorists believe their own BS. Maybe I'm just a cynic but I'm not buying it.

Zubaydah didn't need to reconcile his :35 breakdown with his own self image. He knows what he is.

He had to reconcile it with his (and the rest of his takfiri buddies) public image in the eyes of Akhbar Q. Public.

To that end he would necessarily have to have had a divine revelation from Allah, or Jiminy Cricket or anyone else who would save his terrorist street cred.

And dollars to donuts, if he was asked today by MSM what caused him to crack he be bitching and complaining about harsh interrogation, not divine revelation.

Everything that comes out of these guys' mouths is designed to create a certain image and response in a segment of those who are paying attention. All the more reason to keep it secret, and keep it going.

[Topsecretk9]

Lawyers Cleared Destroying Tapes
New York Times, United States - 57 minutes ago
By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — Lawyers within the clandestine branch of the Central Intelligence Agency gave written approval in ...

the link is dead though

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11intel.html?hp

[Topsecretk9]

Isn't that weird, the link is dead? I looked all over NYT's and can't find it, do they pull posted stories?

[boris]

This link ???

Works for me.

The former intelligence official acknowledged that there had been nearly two years of debate among government agencies about what to do with the tapes, and that lawyers within the White House and the Justice Department had in 2003 advised against a plan to destroy them. But the official said that C.I.A. officials had continued to press the White House for a firm decision, and that the C.I.A. was never given a direct order not to destroy the tapes.

“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” he said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.”

The former official spoke on condition of anonymity because there is a continuing Justice Department inquiry into the matter. He said he was sympathetic to Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., the former chief of the clandestine branch, who has been described by intelligence officials as having authorized the destruction of the tapes. The former official said he was concerned that Mr. Rodriguez was being unfairly singled out for blame in the destruction of the tapes.

The former official said Mr. Rodriguez decided in November 2005 that he had sufficient authority to destroy the interrogation videos, based on the written authorization given to him from lawyers within the branch, then known as the Directorate of Operations.

[kim]

It's a syllogism: torture doesn't work, waterboarding works, therefore, waterboarding is not torture. It's baptism.

Now, I jest, but waterboarding is a smart bomb to the Central Nervous System. Google 'Diving Reflex'. It is full immersion baptism. Surely you don't think it was John the Baptist's rhetoric that changed faiths.
=============================

[Topsecretk9]

Found it...link

and of course, predictably

The former intelligence official acknowledged that there had been nearly two years of debate among government agencies about what to do with the tapes, and that lawyers within the White House and the Justice Department had in 2003 advised against a plan to destroy them. But the official said that C.I.A. officials had continued to press the White House for a firm decision, and that the C.I.A. was never given a direct order not to destroy the tapes.

“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” he said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.”

SO much for that pressuring Bush White house reducing them to tears at every turn...It's Bush's fault BUT?

...In describing the decision to destroy the tapes, current and former officials said John A. Rizzo, the agency’s top lawyer at the time, was not asked for final approval before the tapes were destroyed, although Mr. Rizzo had been involved in discussions for two years about the tapes.

It is unclear what weight an opinion from a lawyer within the clandestine service would have if it were not formally approved by Mr. Rizzo. But the former official said Mr. Rodriguez and others in the clandestine branch believed the legal judgment gave them the blessing to destroy the tapes.

The former official said the leaders of the clandestine service believed they “didn’t need to ask Rizzo’s permission.”

[Topsecretk9]

Yes Boris - thanks, I finally found it too.

[cathyf]

Your whole post hinges on the notion that high level terrorists believe their own BS. Maybe I'm just a cynic but I'm not buying it.

Depends what bs we're talking about. I was thinking more of the Walter Mitty fantasies of being smarter, more courageous, tougher, more powerful, more "special" to God, sexier, better looking, more awe-inducing... The sort of fantasies which require massive applications of cognitive dissonance to reconcile with that whole breaking-after-35-seconds thingy.

[kim]

Chris Hitchens sees lighter shades of beyond the pale from the CIA, too, in Slate.
==========================

[MayBee]

It is interesting that every terrorist we ever catch turns out to be a pathetic loser, isn't it?
Mousoui? Crazy.
Zubaydah? Borderline retarded
Richard Reid? A Clown
KSM? A grandiose liar
Johnny "Taliban" Walker Lind? A Confused Kid
Jose Padilla? Just a common thug

I bet the ones that actually are successful are much much smarter and more together.
It's just so weird, though, how the alive ones are all so innocent and abused by us. Isn't it?
It's uncanny how that happens.

[Ann]

Soylent, You know I love you, but were you talking about bad guys or Bill Clinton or both?

"It's one thing to have good intentions; it is another thing entirely to change people's lives," Clinton said. "She's the best non-incumbent I have ever had a chance to vote for. In my whole life I've never met anyone like her."
Clinton Says Hillary Was Always the One

"Everything that comes out of these guys' mouths is designed to create a certain image and response in a segment of those who are paying attention. All the more reason to keep it secret, and keep it going."
JOM Soylent Red | December 10, 2007 at 10:44 PM

Another thing for me is: I will never believe anyone that says "in my whole life."

GodSpeed Soylent. Tell your guys we love you!

[cathyf]

Well, my gut reaction to the whole "why do they hate us?" question is pretty simple -- they are pathetic losers, and they fear that we will recognize them as pathetic losers.

Now I hasten to point out that being such pathetic losers is what makes them so dangerous to us. Unlike the magical-thinking truthers who think that "pathetic" = "harmless" I think that the competent crazies are the scariest people of all.

[Topsecretk9]

Maybee

Curveball too - crazy drunk...and the beat goes on...

[kim]

Hey, pooch, what kind of weapon is that for taking on garbage disposals?
============================

[Ann]

And I would add Mark Levin to the mud wrestling contest:

To Tim Russert: [Mark R. Levin]

[Topsecretk9]

I'm stumped Kim?

also, best of the Web...

Fox News reports that "the CIA said Thursday it destroyed the tapes because of concerns that its agents could be put at risk." The same lawmakers who are untroubled by putting agents at risk now were up in arms over the exposure of CIA analyst Valerie Plame as a consequence of her husband's publicity-seeking. They really seem to view Karl Rove, not Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, as the enemy.

[kim]

That towel's seen a horror show close up. I've just thought a just thrust for his surrender; perhaps a rationale will be discovered, perhaps not. It's a comforting thought, nonetheless.
==========================

[Topsecretk9]

was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

The virtual tour of the CIA prisons (they've now morphed into "detention sites" when placed in the sentence of Pelosi) isn't being mentioned much either.

Jay clammed up and suddenly sees no reason for a special prosecutor - no, no, no closed door hearings of course and Nancy's being careful and coy and parsey...

On Monday, Mrs. Harman took to CNN to trumpet the letter she wrote in 2003. "As a rookie ranking member two weeks in, I was briefed on interrogation matters," she said. "I was concerned enough about some of the things raised in the briefing that I wrote a highly classified letter, which I have asked be declassified, but it hasn't been declassified. But Director Hayden basically raised the subject last week, so I can say that in my letter, I say that any planned effort to destroy videotapes would be ill-advised."

On Sunday, Mrs. Pelosi issued a statement distinguishing between her briefings and those of Mrs. Harman, who she said "was briefed more extensively and advised the techniques had in fact been employed." She also said she "concurred" with Mrs. Harman's letter from 2003 that Mrs. Pelosi said protested the new interrogation practices.

Mrs. Harman yesterday met those careful words with an icy politeness. When asked on CNN whether Mrs. Pelosi "dropped the ball" when she was on the intelligence committee in 2002, Mrs. Harman said: "I don't think so. And she's speaking for herself. I wasn't in the meeting she attended. But she says that she has complained about this."

http://www.nysun.com/article/67821?page_no=2

Notice Harmon says planned. Porter Goss evidently was against destroying the tapes and I am pretty sure Roberts said he was against destroying them although he disputes they were informed of it actually happening.

CIA says they informed the Intell committees...maybe they did some members? The ones who supported it?

wonder if this is shaping up as either Jay and Nancy were major sources of intel leaks and/or there is some record of them encouraging the destruction of the tapes.

[Topsecretk9]

no, no, no! Just closed door hearings of course

[kim]

Any bets not all copies are destroyed? Even then they knew this was nuclear. There is so much covering of ass here you'd get the idea the emperor got a glimpse of his naked butt.
=========================

[Jane]

Speaking of Tim Russert, uh, NBC...

Fox reported this morning that the vaunted network ("our policy is to not run Christmas messages supporting the troops if we don't like the web address") has been forced to return millions of dollars to it's advertisers due to bad ratings.

[Sue]

So Pelosi was fine with waterboarding in the days after 9/11 but she is now against it? What has changed since the days after 9/11? I heard her recently claim we were not safer now, that in fact, Bush had made us less safe. Wouldn't she be more for waterboarding now if we are less safe than in the days after 9/11? Does she want us to die now but didn't in the days after 9/11? Or was she hoping no one ever found out she was for it before she was against it?

[Topsecretk9]

So, reading the lefty blogs they are predictably trying to hang their hat on no "firm" order from the WH to not destroy the tapes...not realizing this flies in the face of their coveted meme that the White House so terrorized the CIA, reduced the jellyfish operatives to tears when they merely called, pressured them to "twist" intel ect. ect, now they are screaming the WH wasn't firm enough. - ignoring the fact that the WH, the DOJ, the GOP briefed and one normally hated Dem all advised the CIA to not proceed with their "plan, the CIA's plan to destroy them.

On record, there is about 2 minutes of actual waterboarding (KSM-1 1/2 - other dude 35 seconds) and WAPO reporting that this was so un-objectionable to Dems briefed that there was even a desire to get tougher. Also, no hand wringing about the "black sites".

Last night I wondered about Jay and Nancy's odd parsing and clamming up. Are they among the ONLY people who endorsed the CIA's plan to destroy the tapes?

[MayBee]

I think if they worked harder, tops, they could come to the realization that the CIA destroyed the tapes because they were sure the White House was about to out all the agents on them. Like they did to top spy, Valerie Plame.

[Topsecretk9]

Yeah Maybee, but then that deflates Kennedy's whole 'Whitehouse cover-up" meme

Also, this no "firm" O R D E R from the White House apparently wouldn't have meant diddly since the operatives involved didn't even care if their own lawyers gave an O R D E R

The former official said the leaders of the clandestine service believed they “didn’t need to ask Rizzo’s permission.”

I hope TM calls them out on this.

[Topsecretk9]

Also-- I love this comment over at Hot Air--

“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” he said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.”

That’s oddly reminiscent of Bob Novak’s explanation for publishing Valerie Plame’s name after talking to the CIA. In Novak’s case, he was expected to interpret the formal, unemphatic “don’t do that” as an absolute “No.”

It will be interesting to see if the White House’s ostensibly unemphatic “don’t do that” will now be deemed to be a tacit endorsement of the tapes’ destruction by the left.

DaveS on December 11, 2007 at 10:35 AM

[Topsecretk9]

Another meme frittering away - and what Maybee's been saying - is the notion that harsh interrogation techniques were the barainchild of evil Bush administration and he ordered the people out to do this (which never made sense) - the leading lights on the left never sort of considered it was the CIA officers themselves who wanted to get tougher and sought assurances and permission to do so?

...Kiriakou said that each time CIA agents wished to use waterboarding or any other harsh interrogation technique, they had to present a "well-laid out, well-thought out reason" to top government officials. In Zubaydah's case, Kiriakou said the waterboarding had immediate effect...

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2007/12/11/ap/headlines/d8tfb8fo0.txt

[SunnyDay]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh Reid is chiming in now. .. Obstruction of justice, might need a special prosecutor.

My paranoia is overwhelming. This is the plan. Next phrase will be - "what did the President know and when did he know it?"

Then the whole thing will be drug out through the rest of the unending election cycle.

[Jane]

I think they will try but from what I've been reading the WH specifically told them not to destroy the tapes and they ignored the instruction. The whining is apparently because the WH didn't go and physically restrain them. Because of course they are all two years old, incompetent and fruitcakes.

[PeterUK]

This is using the Plame "outed" technique,focus on an inconsequential and obscure detail that only specialists would be aware of, and magnify its importance.
Tapes are frequently erased or recorded over.The BBC did this to many irreplaceable programmes,evidential CCTV tapes have been lost and recorded over.Why? Simply to save money and to free up storage space.

[cathyf]

Because of course they[the CIA] are all two years old, incompetent and fruitcakes.

Well, Jane, like the stopped clock right twice a day, the leftists do have a point there... ;-)

[Topsecretk9]

President:

"My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when [CIA Director] Michael Hayden briefed me," Bush said.

"There's a preliminary inquiry going on and I think you'll find that a lot more data, facts will be coming out," he said, "that's good. It will be interesting to know what the true facts are."...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/bush-i-didnt-kn.html

[Topsecretk9]

Maybee per your 11:19 AM, it was only a matter of time

But as, per usual, I'm just not as certain as others seem to be of the Bush Administration's involvement, even though it's easy enough for me to believe in it. But it's not as if Bush and the CIA are on excellent terms. Maybe they were afraid that exactly what did happen would happen: the specifics of the program would get out and the Bush Administration would turn out to be very willing to let CIA agents (e.g., Rodriguez) be hung out to dry. Maybe they decided it would be better to be hung out to dry for a destroyer of evidence than for a war criminal/torturer/violator of international law.

The pretzel twisting on this story is something to behold.

[Topsecretk9]

ooooohhh watch Nannncccyyy spin, parse and um weasel big time...

[Topsecretk9]

Actually-- that is an older video, so Nancy was lying...

[PaulV]

Logic:
Torture is not effective
Waterboarding is effective
waterboarding is not torture