Powered by TypePad

« Krugman Still Spinning On Health Care Mandates | Main | Dignity »

December 07, 2007



Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) CIA intelligence activities

I must be really out of it, because I thought a good portion of the CIA's mission was to be legally dubious.


Show we presume that the tape with the material showing the Iranian weapons program was also destroyed ?

The selective love/hate relationship of the Left and the CIA should be enough to spawn a Leftie version of "24".


Let me venture a wild guess here: The CIA regularly destroys interrogation tapes because they reveal the identities and appearance of the interrogators which would put their lives and operations at risk.

What I love is that now the Euros are saying--hold on, Iran is still dangerous. Maybe we should have listened to Eisenhower and not assumed the cost of Euro defense for so long. As instapundit's link says:Maybe with daddy out of the picture, the kids have to step up to the plate more.


OOps--re first graph--scratch it, pls. I should have read the links first.


Sorry, but God damnit. Every time it looks like this Administration is starting to get things right, things like this comes up. Time after time after time.

This is absolutely unacceptable. The clowns that approved this should be drawn and quartered.

Figuratively (I think).




Jay Rockefeller, was chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, now and in the fall of 2002, when the Bush Administration managed to lie and cheat their way in the Iraq War, while Jay, who had full access to the same intelligence analysts that Bush had, was completely fooled, and therefore failed to inform his Democratic colleagues. Or at least that's what Jay wants you believe.

Frankly, I think the CIA needs a little blood letting, but I'm not sure this should be the reason for it.


This from TPM:

Update: Whoops! I originally misidentified Jay Rockefeller as a Republican in this post. I regret the Freudian slip.

Even Ackerman must think him too stupid to be a Democrat.


SMG- tell me what you mean by "things like this"?
The creation of the tapes?
The denial of the tapes existence?
The destruction of the tapes?

I don't think this is good, but considering the tapes existed, I think it's the necessary political hit to protect their agents. I don't see how the CIA can start letting tapes like this out of their direct control. I don't trust Rockefeller, I don't trust the NYT, and I don't trust whatever agents talk to the NYT all the time.


The left will love this story.

No tape, no evidence
No facts to get in the way
But a good reason to make hay
Will make Chris Matthew's day

Appalled Moderate

OK TM. The Democrats are pathetic. I would agree to that, as a specific and a general matter. (They so remind me of the '93 Democratic Congress that I wonder if there will be an unforseen upset in 2008)

But. What do you think about the underlying CIA policy? Are you glad the story came out? Should there be an investigation? Should heads roll?


If only the RATS had been this upset when Sandy Berger stuffed classified docs down his pants.


SMG- tell me what you mean by "things like this"?

Well, reportedly (always good to cover one's fanny with that qualifier) the CIA told the judge in the Moussaoui case that they had no tapes of interrogations relevant to the case.

That's called perjury? Obstruction of justice?

They also told the 9/11 Commission that they didn't have tapes of the interrogation of Zubaydah.

Now, there may be a legitimate reason for destroying the tapes. I'm willing to entertain them.

But don't tell Judges and don't tell Commissions that you don't have them when you do.

The CIA works for us; we don't work for them. And yes, I think I understand the national security concerns.



Maybe they put them in a safe and forgot about them as they did with the forgeries Wilson claimed he saw before we got them.


Via AP

The CIA says the tapes were destroyed late in 2005, a year marked by increasing pressure from defense attorneys to obtain videotapes of detainee interrogations. The scandal over harsh treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq had focused public attention on interrogation techniques.

Beginning in 2003, attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui began seeking videotapes of interrogations they believed might help them show their client wasn't a part of the 9/11 attacks. These requests heated up in 2005 as the defense slowly learned the identities of more detainees in U.S. custody.

In May 2005, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to disclose whether interrogations were recorded. The government objected to that order, and the judge modified it on Nov. 3, 2005, to ask for confirmation of whether the government "has video or audio tapes of these interrogations" and then named specific ones. Eleven days later, the government denied it had video or audio tapes of those specific interrogations.

Last month, the CIA admitted to Brinkema and a circuit judge that it had failed to hand over tapes of enemy combatant witnesses. Those interrogations were not part of the CIA's detention program and were not conducted or recorded by the agency, the agency said.


The last time the CIA screwed up, Walter Pincus and Joe Wilson put the blame on President Bush.

I'm wondering if we're now witnessing some new smoke and new mirrors as a new distraction.


Well the storyline has shifted considerably:
Those interrogations were not part of the CIA's detention program and were not conducted or recorded by the agency, the agency said.

This suggests foreign govt involvement..And the govt will when pressed indicate a foreign affairs exception to discovery requests at least re the Brinkema inquiry.

It will be interesting if re the Congressional request, they say they told the Harman and Rockefeller, destroyed the tapes out of fear of leaks which would affect foreign affairs and both of them agreed.



Jay Rockefeller, now where have we heard that name Before

"SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. The — I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."

While Pres Bush was defending America, Jay Rockefeller, by his own admission, was meeting with friends of Saddam Hussein to pass on what he had learned from his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee. How is that different than what Benedict Arnold did?


This suggests foreign govt involvement..And the govt will when pressed indicate a foreign affairs exception to discovery requests at least re the Brinkema inquiry.

The Saudis.

Maybe Pakistan as well.

Certainly Saudi Arabia. Frum's citation of Posner's discovery that Zubaydah mentioned 3 Saudi princes and a Pakistani general is the key. All four later died in strange circumstances.

My guess is that if you pull the thread, it'll show real troubling stuff re murder, infiltration into the Royal Family and into high reaches of the Pakistani military.



SMG- Do we know they were relevant to the Moussaoui case?
Anyway, I'm unwilling to blame this on "the Administration".

As for whether the people that approved it should be drawn and quartered, I don't know. It may be that they will be charged with and found guilty of perjury. That seems to me a better option than allowing someone to make a torture prosecution case out of them, or to risk letting them be used as propaganda, or to set a precedent that defendants in terrorism cases can gain access to CIA interrogation tapes in a fishing expedition.


My read is they had a mix of tapes 2 of their own not related to Mr. M. and other mail ins of cooperating agencies they were handed off to us.


The only reason they revealed those to the judge is the donated tapes were related to the specific names on the judge's list


Ah yes, let's blame Harman and Rockefeller for it. Of course, you would have blamed them earlier if they had leaked out info of these torture tapes pre-destruction. Talk about circling the wagons! You know, you can be a conservative, and you can be a republican, and you can still be outraged over the corruption, malfesance and incompetence of this administration. That doesn't mean you have to vote for Hillary. Sheesh.


It may have taken them a while to connect the dots on who the donated tape people were to match them up to the judge lists with all the aka's those guys flipped around


What bothers me is in close time frame we get the dubious NIE, Plame saying Fritz turned testimony of GWB and Dick over to Waxman and the tape destruction in less than a week

Long odds on that all breaking at once


Why would they have to leak the information?

nd you can be a republican, and you can still be outraged over the corruption, malfesance and incompetence of this administration.

We are. When warranted. But, you have to admit, crying foul after the fact when you knew all along is SOP for democrats.


The CIA did not say to the court in its original filing that it had no terrorist tapes at all. It would be wrong to assert that," CIA spokesman George Little said.

The 9/11 Commission referenced the 2002 interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Binalshibh multiple times throughout its report, but cited written documents and audiotapes only.

CIA Spokesman Mark Mansfield told FOX News the tapes were not destroyed while the 9/11 Commission was active so that they would be avilable if ever requested for its report.

"The agency went to great lengths to meet the requests of the 9/11 Commission," Mansfield told FOX News. "As Director Hayden pointed out in his statement, the tapes were destroyed only when it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."


Disappointed after failing to make their case on Iran and influence the outcome of the United States’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released this week, Military Intelligence will present its hard core evidence on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program on Sunday to the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff during a rare visit he will be making to Israel.

Admiral Michael Mullen will land in Israel Sunday morning for a 24-hour visit that will include a one-on-one meeting with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, as well as with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Mullen’s visit to Israel will be exactly a week after the publication of the NIE report that claimed Iran had frozen its nuclear military program in 2003 and has yet to restart it. During his visit, Military Intelligence plans to present him with Israel’s evidence that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons.

“The report clearly shows that we did not succeed in making our case over the past year in the run-up to this report,” a defense official said Thursday. “Mullen’s visit is an opportunity to try and fix that.”


re Valerie

After her hour-long speech and question-and-answer session, Plame dropped one bombshell almost casually.

She said a lawyer had called her just before her talk began and told her that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald had agreed to turn his transcripts of interviews with Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over to U. S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who is known for his relish for investigating wrongdoing by Republicans.


Who/What is the CIA and what are they suppose to do? Do they ever do this?


Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) called for Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the CIA officials who destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of detainees. Durbin said he’s calling on Mukasey “to investigate whether CIA officials who covered up the existence of these videotapes violated the law


What about the alien bodies ? From Roswell ?


Sounds like it's time for another round of lie detector tests at the CIA.


Interesting observation SMG. And if true, it would show good reason why to even say they had the tapes and to claim the statutory exemption would have been to tip everyone off with difficult foreign affairs implications.


But. What do you think about the underlying CIA policy? Are you glad the story came out? Should there be an investigation? Should heads roll?

Evidently I should have noted that I share the Captain's outrage; I guess the use of the word "outrage" was not enough of a clue.

I have supported enhanced interrogations, but it is hard to continue doing that when the CIA pulls stunts like this.

If they thought these tapes would kill the program, maybe we ought to oblige them by killing the program. If this is so bad they are afraid to show it to Congress, it must be pretty bad. And,as the Captain said, given the timing it is hard to take seriously their security arguments.


If they thought these tapes would kill the program, maybe we ought to oblige them by killing the program. they did in 2002, didn't they?


I keep bringing this up and it's only tangentially related - related to the CIA's pattern of weirdness and secretive withholding relevant information

On the Lebanese FBI - CIA agent

In another development, a federal official familiar with the case said the CIA had access to derogatory information about Prouty before the FBI hired her in 1999, but failed to disclose it when the FBI contacted the CIA during a background check.

Had the information been disclosed, the official said, the FBI might not have hired her. More perplexing, the official said, is why the CIA hired Prouty away from the FBI.

The CIA declined comment.

In a weird way - sounds like the CIA had a mole in the FBI.


oh, and what she was looking at contained...

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Chadwell didn't indicate why Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese immigrant who once lived in Taylor, wanted the information or what she did with it. But he said four of the inquiries involved files containing the names of confidential FBI informants.

Would the CIA be interested in getting the names of the FBI confidential informants? Speculation, of course.


TM, We still don't know enough. Assume Jordan interrogated these guys, not us. Assume forther Steve is right and they named high officials and royals in ostensible allies (Pakistan and S.A., for example, people later bumped off in odd ways),finally assume that Jordan made the tapes and passed them on to the CIA. Can you see a way to respond to the CT which wouldn't open up this door to disclosures which would hurt national security/foreign affairs? If the CIA told the chairs of the two relevant committees and they concurred, it suggests the agreement not to disclose even the minimum was a bipartisan decision that the exceptional case was at hand.


'20 years of federal service, she does not meet the minimum age requirement'

Plame want to retire early and be payed for twenty for twenty years. The legislation(Plame bill) will be used by all federal employees to retire at twenty years and be payed at the twenty years. The legislation's approval is needed for employees to retire. Congress is too slow and they are not retiring, but staying on after twenty years becase they are not paid immediately. Congress needs to approve the legislation or the federal employees will get rid of all the dems. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not approving the legislation quickly enough. They will be thrown out along with the dems. The dems are going to blame OPM at the White House. It even says open season(fair game) at the webiste! It covers their kids up to age 22. It would be nice if they approved the legislation now, it could be tagged to the open season program at OPM.

The tapes are destroyed probably because of what is done. Abu Grahb or whatever shows guys screwing guys and other wierd shit. Those thought they were CIA guys. The CIA guys are going to deny they participated in or knew of(yes, they'll call it Navy shit) the drugging of terrorists, the medical work and how that's done and the removal of parts. It's the ultimate torture and the point is the victim doesn't rmember because they've been drugged and probalby talked all day long and woke up with strange memories of nurses and guys screwing guys or something.



TS, I think you're on the wrong foot. I think both agencies were desperate for women (AA) and Arab translators and she was a good one. I think the FBI didn't vet her properly and someone at the agency goofed in not treating her as a new hire subject to that agency's more stringent vetting. I think the FBI files she was nosing aroundin were about her B-I-L and she was telling him what the agency knew about him and who was informing on him.


I say hold your judgement until we know more, TM. It would not be the first time that Capt Ed (whom I love anyway) was the first to show he ws in the "clean toga" club. I can think of reasons why this happened that do not amount to obstruction of justice in any normal meaning.It may be that it was. I just am unwilling to drop the flag until I know more.



Oh, I was just speculating. But "FBI didn't vet her properly and someone at the agency goofed in not treating her as a new hire subject to that agency's more stringent vetting."

Fine. It doesn't explain why the Agency withheld info from the FBI and then ignore the info when they hired her away.


"How is that different than what Benedict Arnold did?"

Worse if you think about it,Arnold was born a British subject,what is Rockefeller's excuse?


While the US Intelligrence community can switch estimates at the drop of a dime, the American public isn't buying it:

[quote]Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% disagree and say Iran has not stopped its nuclear weapons program. Twenty-one percent (21%) of men believe Iran has stopped the weapons development along with 16% of women (see crosstabs). The survey was conducted following release of a government report saying that Iran halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. The Rasmussen Reports survey also found that 67% of American voters believe that Iran remains a threat to the national security of the United States.... [/quote]


Maybe it's something in the water. Either at Langley or throughout the U.S. You decide.


In my 2003 New York Times bestseller, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, I discussed Abu Zubaydah at length in Chapter 19, "The Interrogation." There I set forth how Zubaydah initially refused to help his American captors. Also, disclosed was how U.S. intelligence established a so-called "fake flag" operation, in which the wounded Zubaydah was transferred to Afghanistan under the ruse that he had actually been turned over to the Saudis. The Saudis had him on a wanted list, and the Americans believed that Zubaydah, fearful of torture and death at the hands of the Saudis, would start talking when confronted by U.S. agents playing the role of Saudi intelligence officers.

Instead, when confronted by his "Saudi" interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. "He will tell you what to do," Zubaydah assured them

That man was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, one of King Fahd's nephews, and the chairman of the largest Saudi publishing empire. Later, American investigators would determine that Prince Ahmed had been in the U.S. on 9/11.


The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program.

This may or may not be the case, but nothing in the Times story suggests that anything was "withheld".


American interrogators used painkillers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet. They also utilized a thiopental sodium drip (a so-called truth serum). Several hours after he first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue, that one investigator told me was the "Rosetta Stone" of 9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan governments.

He named two other Saudi princes, and also the chief of Pakistan's air force, as his major contacts. Moreover, he stunned his interrogators, by charging that two of the men, the King's nephew, and the Pakistani Air Force chief, knew a major terror operation was planned for America on 9/11.

It would be nice to further investigate the men named by Zubaydah, but that is not possible. All four identified by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes, the King's 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe, after having liposuction in Riyadh's top hospital; the second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one car accident, on his way to the funeral of Prince Ahmed; and one week later, the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, "of thirst." The head of Pakistan's Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, was the last to go. He died, together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides, when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003. Pakistan's investigation of the explosion -- if one was even done -- has never been made public.

Via HuffPo Gerald Posner


It would not be the first time that Capt Ed (whom I love anyway) was the first to show he ws in the "clean toga" club.

He often comes across as being about quarter step to the right of the Democratic Leadership Council. Yeah, he supports the Iraq war, but so does Chris Hitchens and he's no conservative.


Well, he and Malkin and a few others are always first to stand in line and shout they are outraged whenever the left tosses mud at one of theirs--outrage that rests on believing those tossing the mud who have no right to be trusted without verification.

With allies like these...

Appalled Moderate


The issue is one of emphasis. (And you are a bloody good writer with good command of your style.) You mention the outrage, after a couple of sarcastic lines, then move to the much smaller point about Plame's pension, then take more time writing about the pathetic Dem oversight.

When you make those writing choices, its easy to construe that you do not think a whole lot of the revelation.
I think your commenters, judging by the tone of their comments, take that implication. Seeing what I see from Clarice, and her visible disappointemt folowing your update, she read you that way.

The risk you are running isn't what people like me think you write; it's what your crew of dittoheads think you write. Given that this comment section seems to get pretty wide dissemination over portions of the right blogophere and the golden microphone of Rush, that might need to be a concern.


I have tried repeatedly to post to this thread a short comment without links of any kind. I get a spam filter warning, does anyone know what might be wrong.


Maybe you need more dittos for your head.

bio mom

Ever notice that these "revelations" usually occur when there is some sort of related legislation moving through the Democratic Congres? They are right now trying to outlaw severe interrogation techniques and lo and behold, the Times decides to tell the CIA they will publish this on Thursday, forcing the CIA to go public. There are many other examples of this also. Only a fool would believe that there isn't a direct line between the Dems in Congress and the Times and Post.


The risk you are running isn't what people like me think you write; it's what your crew of dittoheads think you write.

How are we supposed to regurgitate Tom's talking points if we don't understand him?
Now I've gone off looking like I'm not outraged, and Tom is outraged, and what should I do? We all have to AGREE!!

So far, there's no evidence that the tapes were evidence, therefore making the destruction perfectly legitimate.
I don't agree with TM that if the tapes can't be shown, it must mean the program is so awful it should be canceled. Look what a rumor of a Koran in a toilet did, and I think we all have a glimpse of how information and pictures can be misused.

bio mom

Is the CIA forced by law to videotape their interrogations or is it a choice they make for their own reasons? Seems like if it is the former then they can destroy a tape they had the choice to make in the first place. That, of course, does not address any issue regarding what was said during the trial, etc. The legalities there are above my knowledge since I am no lawyer (thank God, no offense to those of you hear that are).


Quite frankly,until we can get back to the days of walls, blindfolds, and cigarettes for those who would sell thier first born to be able to publicly publish sensitive secrets of our fine nation to give our enemies thier needed jolt of moral and purpose, then I don't care what the CIA does to keep said secrets out of these traitors hands.

Cecil Turner

The risk you are running isn't what people like me think you write; it's what your crew of dittoheads think you write.

Piffle. I enjoy TM's writing, and we're on the same page most of the time . . . he doesn't tell me how to think. I suspect it's the same for most folks on this board, unlike some others I might name. Try the same approach at DKos and tell me how it works out.

Besides, I think TM's wrong on this one. The CIA is part of the Administration, and doesn't answer to Congress. Congress has no power to demand classified information from the Executive, and should be rebuffed if it does. If the tapes in question identified specific procedures or officers (and I'm having a hard time featuring why it wouldn't do both), then they should be destroyed as soon as they aren't useful to avoid a leakfest from the sieve of political operatives at CIA. The last thing they should do with them is give them to Congress (thus ensuring they end up as a feature on Al Jazeerah). If I were in charge, I'd go after the CIA with a tomahawk . . . but this most certainly wouldn't be the reason. (If however, in a rare turn of poetic justice, Congress decides to defund the whole institution, well . . . even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.)


Hey, I am a ditto head and I don't agree with Tom, neither does RUSH.

The CIA is supposed to gather secrets and keep secrets. Unlike Plame, the same people are yelling now about why they were not told a secret.


If you look at what was going on at the time the tapes were destroyed- the overwrought leaks to Dana Priest about the "torture" prisons- it is easy to see why the CIA would think the political climate was too dangerous for them to hold onto something like tapes of actual interrogations.
The NYTs was digging so hard for dirt they would eventually stumble on the SWIFT-sifting program, but they hadn't found that yet.
Remember Durbin on the Senate floor the summer of 2005 saying we were running gulags because the detainees were kept in stress positions and cold rooms? It certainly wouldn't take anything illegal on the tapes for them to be used against the administration.

hit and run

The risk you are running isn't what people like me think you write; it's what your crew of dittoheads think you write.

I don't agree with TM

Besides, I think TM's wrong on this one.

Everyone is off base here.

I trust Tom implicitly. He says "Jump!" and I say, "How..." well, to be honest, usually I say, "Let me tell you a story when I was 12" or whatever.

But seriously, I trust him.

Until he assigns a percentage to his prediction >69.5%, that is.

Oh, and as far as this matter, I'm six beers from having an opinion (that's half way there, for those of you keeping score at home).

And besides, Baby Looney Tunes is on. Priorities, people.


Also in the fall of 2005, the WH was meeting with Bill Keller of the NYT to try to keep them from publishing some of James Risen's stories. He printed the NSA story in Dec, 2005- the story that would become the great cry of "Domestic wiretapping!".

Leaks of intelligence information were being used in slanted ways against the admin and CIA on a regular basis in the months surrounding the destruction of those tapes.
I can absolutely see how the CIA didn't want them around.


I believe the CIA destroyed the tapes because they proved that torture works.. can't have that my friend.

I also believe that all evidence should be destroyed before it is given to the New York Times.

Rick Ballard

Current and former intelligence officials said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., ....

Two former intelligence officials said that Porter J. Goss, the director of the agency at the time, was not told that the tapes would be destroyed and was angered to learn that they had been....

Several current and former intelligence officials were interviewed for this article over a period of several weeks. All requested anonymity because information about the tapes had been classified until General Hayden issued his statement on Thursday acknowledging that they had been destroyed.

I expect to be fully prepared to consider whether I give a damn about this matter one week after the last Dem Queada operative in the CIA is charged with treason.

I would also strongly support waterboarding CIA employees in order to discover which ones are Dem Queada operatives. MOM's Moles are still screwing up the lawn.


Wonder if this incident indicates a lack of trust between different departments within the CIA?


"MAYBE IT IS NOT OBVIOUS: OK, I know sometimes I can be a bit sarcastic, but when I provide a link to Captain Ed and describe it as "the latest outrage" and the Captain appears to be outraged, it is not an absurd leap to think that maybe I am outraged as well;"

Obvious, no. Cautious; to a fault.

Do you look both ways on a one-way street?

Combine suspenders with a belt?


Bond supports hearings and says

""There are one or two more things I'd like the committee to be fully briefed on," he said."


hit and run

I expect to be fully prepared to consider whether I give a damn about this matter one week after the last Dem Queada operative in the CIA is charged with treason.

To each his own, I guess.

I'm using the Twelve-Beer-Threshold to make such a determination.


Rick at 6:58 pm . . .

I agree with everything you said.


You gotta love those Israelis. They are taking things into their own hand and bypassing our State Dept. and intelligence agencies and taking their case straight to the Joint Chiefs about Iran's nuclear weapons program. Stay tuned, should be fun. And now the GOP is demanding hearings on the NIE too.


A commenter on Powerline forum

Now, here’s a man after my own heart. According to my morning New York Times, Mr. Rodriguez, when head of CIA’s Directorate of Operations (lately renamed for the third time, National Clandestine Service) in 2005, ordered tapes of CIA interrogations of two top al Qaeda operatives held by CIA, destroyed to protect the identities and faces of CIA officers, not to mention their families.

Good for him. Already, various politicians and lawyers (from both parties0, as well as the usual media suspects, are ginning up a big controversy, calling for investigations and threatening prosecutions. One even had the ignorant gall to tell the Times that destroying the tapes was irrelevant to protecting CIA officers since “millions” of documents, inlcuding many that might well make their way into court proceedings and the public arena, contain the names of sundry CIA employees. The fact is that names alone would jihadists no good, since CIA operations officers in the field always use a variety of aliases.

But Rodriguez understood that the moment those tapes passed into the hands of Congressional staff members, Justice Department lawyers, etc., it would be only a matter of time before they were delivered to the NYT or the WP, appeared on YouTube and then bounced around on jihadist websites—with the faces and voices of CIA officers for all to see (maybe their true names, too, if the leaks were comprehensive enough. It’s not hard to see how or why these officers would be specifically targeted. Given the nature of their assignments in 2002, it’s also a high probability that they are still assigned to work in one or another danger spot (Afganistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc.). At a minimum, their usefulness in this line of work would be over, since CIA would not risk their kidnapping or assassination.

It will be interesting to follow what everyone who was so up in arms about the inadvertent disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity wi;; have to say about this. I’m not optimistic as they will wrap themselves in a cloak of legalistic pieties. It should be clear to everyone six years after 9/11, however, that defaeting al Qaeda will take a great deal more than what either the armed forces or the FBI and US law can provide.

Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. is a brave man who stood up for his officers when it really counted. His career is almost certainly over, and he may well be dragged into court and prosecuted—if not now, then after George Bush ceases to be President. Remember him.



"Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program."

A bit mean spirited,any day now the Three Wise Ayatollahs are going to take gifts of Gold Frankinsense and Uranium to the the manger at Bethlehem.


Interesting perspective that Powerline commenter proffers. You mean, the left really doesn't care about protecting CIA offices and their identities eh.


Do you look both ways on a one-way street?

You know, I used to only look one way at roundabouts, but after visiting London a few times, I don't trust my instincts any more. Besides, you never know when you'll run into a Limey.

... Dittoheads ...

Seriously? Dude, you just spent two threads debating social security with the group. Some agreed, some didn't, and Tom imposed neither constraints nor order.

I've travelled 'round this big wide web and there ain't no place like home. (Speaking of, I forgot to thank whoever cleaned out the front room this spring--Talk about your 'gean stables!)


York reports on the Huffington's Waas - ABC Brian Ross secret like partnership double teaming Huckabee. (not very transparent) - Also, I am NOT a Huckabee supporter, but it's interesting the shadiness.


Does anyone else think that the tapes were destroyed because in the wake of Abu Gahraib they figured the CIA guys doing the interrogation would be prosecuted? Just a thought. I'm not inclined to shed a lot of tears over anyone in the CIA. Spies just aren't what they used to be.


If this is old news, sorry, but I haven't caught up on the thread yet.

Shuster Imagines Evangelicals Going to Gitmo To 'Torture People Just for Fun'


"But Rodriguez understood that the moment those tapes passed into the hands of Congressional staff members, Justice Department lawyers, etc., it would be only a matter of time before they were delivered to the NYT or the WP, appeared on YouTube and then bounced around on jihadist websites—with the faces and voices of CIA officers for all to see (maybe their true names, too, if the leaks were comprehensive enough."

I would say this sums it up completely,disregarding treachery,politicians leak like a sieves.Give them a morsel of information and a microphone.


"Just 18% of American voters believe that Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program."

Of course they don't. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program, but now has resumed a civil uranium enrichment program. Is there some technical reason why Iran's centrifuges cannot produce weapons grade material?

Exactly what did they stop doing?


There are two obvious reasons for stopping nuclear weapons development.One Iran already has them,two,development was outsourced to another country,say Syria.



That's incredible considering what IMUS got fired for saying. But he was only saying bad things about Evangelicals, that's ok in America.

I would watch Shep over Shuster.


Well if there is anyone left at the CIA with a soul or sense of shame--destroying these tapes was an act of courage.
They should be so embarressed over what Plame has done to them.

And where is narcisco to make sense of this mess when you need him?


I'm with Cecil and Rick. I have no idea what AM thought I was saying. Let me make myself clear--just because someone says something I'm not riding on the bandwagon of the fingerwaggers until I have enough information to know if it's true.
Just before the last election the same crowd hit the roof at the Foley accusations, attacking Hastert et al for not acting. I said wait a minute and looked at the evidence. It was thin..
Today it turns out that there are still problems with the pages, and I don't see Capt Ed or Malkin or anyone else who fell for the Foley foofa suggesting that Pelosi should be held responsible.
Do you?


"They should be so embarressed over what Plame has done to them."

Every American should be embarrassed over what they have allowed Plame and Joe Wilson to do to this country.

JM Hanes


If you liked how the press handled the Abu Ghraib stills, then you'd have loved the "CIA torture tapes" film fest. We'd be wading through the video loops on a daily basis even now -- notwithstanding the substance of whatever was actually on them. Having that many frames to work with is like an oppo research wet dream.

I'm all for questioning the timing, along with the agendas of everyone involved, but I think it's pretty premature to assume you even know just how many timelines were in play and or where they were playing out.

Like some of my fellow dittoheads here, I think Captain Ed is a lot quicker off the mark with his conclusions than he used to be. I have been, and remain, a CQ admirer, but I think he's got too many balls in the air to give most of what crosses his desk the kind of exhaustive attention and treatment that he built his reputation on. More often than not these days, I end up thinking he's only half right.

And when did we start taking the New York Times at face value? Just because Moussaoui asked for "any videotapes of interrogations of al-Qaeda plotters" doesn't mean that "any" such tapes were, in fact, germane to his trial. Until someone is in a position to say that it more than looks like a potential obstruction of justice, I recommend holding off on the outrage -- and I say that as someone who is no fan of the CIA and who wrote off Hayden as a weasel shortly after first hearing him speak.



The only person I have seen cover it is Bob Parks 


Fox has an article on their website:

5 House Pages Booted for Bad Behavior, 2 GOP Lawmakers Leave Oversight Board in Protest

WASHINGTON — Five participants have been kicked out of the coveted House of Representatives page program for youths on Capitol Hill over alleged incidents involving sexual misconduct, shoplifting and fighting.

House officials say the incidents did not involve members of Congress, and comes a little more than one year after then-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from the House after a scandal involving him and messages to pages.

Now two lawmakers have resigned from the page oversight board in protest of the latest problems. The House Page Board oversees about 70 pages who are high school juniors from around the country. They assist lawmakers in message delivery and other tasks in the House. The Senate has its own page program, and it is not under scrutiny.

The new troubles have arisen in the past three months, sources tell FOX News.

In one instance, two pages were caught having oral sex in an elevator in the page dorm, one-half mile south of the Capitol, according to two sources.

In the other incident, two pages were caught shoplifting at the Pentagon City mall across the District of Columbia line in Virginia, sometime in October or November. According to one source, these two pages had enough stolen items they could have faced felony charges.

The fifth page was dismissed for anger management issues, sources said, due to a number of altercations on the House floor, including a fist fight.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday issued a statement calling for an immediate review of the policies by the House page board.

"Since enacting our bipartisan reforms unanimously in January, the House enforces a zero tolerance policy for page misconduct. That is why the House pages involved in each of these serious incidents were immediately expelled and sent home," Pelosi said.

"The House Page Board must undertake an immediate and thorough review of the adequacy of the supervision and security at the page dorm. As a mother and a grandmother, nothing is more important to me than the safety and security of our House pages."

The information follows the resignation Thursday and Friday of two Republican lawmakers sitting on the House board that oversees the page program, Reps. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia.

Thursday, Brown-Waite told FOX News that she did not believe the program was being properly supervised.

There's more at the link.



Did you hear that NBC rejected paid ads thanking our troops.

The ads were made by Freedomswatch.org.

NBC thought they were to political. You know thanking our troops is divisive.


Ann: Yes I heard about the rejected ad, which I've seen and is nothing but a bunch of people saying thank you and has absolutely zero objectionable or political about it.

I sent off an email of complaint to NBC earlier today. A less than complimentary email. I'm livid over this.


Beautifully stated,jmh.


Hot Air just posted that career intelligence officials(VIPS) might have released this if Bush didn't(?). People, repeat after me "The Shadow Warriors."


Oh good Lord, this really is too much. Bryan at Hot Air says:
"I think my outrage meter just broke. I’m not sure it can be fixed."

IC agents threatened to release the NIE if Bush refused to do it?


Sara and Allen-- MAN! Thanks for the heads up.

If that quote is true, that's scary. The left is too stupid to see the grave problems this poses. If the IC community is this radical, who's to say that they can't be bought by anyone if a Democrat were President?


Incidentially, the woman who had her finger on the pulse on Iran, according to Larry and all the other goofballs, had this to say just days before the NIE


In response to the question of whether Iran will acquire nuclear weapons, Plame Wilson said (before the publication of the new U.S. intelligence report): **"They have been operating a clandestine program for 18 years. No doubt they want to be members of the nuclear club." **As part of her work, she and her colleagues in the department worked in coordination with the Israeli intelligence community. But here, too, she cannot say more and is only willing to say that **"Israel is our friend in the counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism war."**

Correct me if I am wrong, but did she say Iran has been working on a "clandestine" nuke program for 18 years? Horses mouth right? And they want to be apart of the "nuclear club"?

I'll remember her Israeli's love sentiment (as opposed to her husbands loathing of and anti-semitism) after the joint chiefs pow wow.


In 1998 and in 2002, the CIA asked him to go to Niger clandestinely to examine whether uranium had in fact been sold to Dr. Khan's smuggling network and to Iraq. Wilson returned and reported that he hadn't found any evidence there to support these rumors.

He said in his book he was there working on economic issues, not Khan,


This is going to turn out to be another Plame media fiasco:

Go read DailyKos, Emptywheel and this from the NYT's:

The Lede.blogs.nytimes

What a great time to go on vacation, I am very jealous Clarice.

hit and run

Beer #12 and I have been wrestling over this issue of the destroyed CIA tapes, and well, I think he has the better argument, so I yield the floor:

Beer #12:

I am NOT [redacted] less filling and I [redacted] taste great. You want less filling, go get you a tall cool drink of water you [redacted] and why don't you hit a treadmill once in a while you lazy [redacted]. Turn me upside down now. I have a [redacted] duty to fulfill and sitting here discussing with you the ins and outs of CIA protocol does nothing to achieve the culmination of my destiny, besides which you don't know [redacted] about the subject matter anyway.

Such a mouth, this one.

That does it. I'm shotgunning #13.


It is interesting that Jane Harman seems to be the last adult left in the Democrat party.


Byran has an update -- turns out the "quote" of threatening Bush is not based on anything but Pat Lang - Vips butt buddies and his "I'm Hearing" is the equivalent of Larry "hearing" from his lunch partner and 22 indictments would be announced momentarily.

My spydar tells me the VIPPERS may have finally gotten burned and need to turn up the "keep hope alive" fire for the ever vigilant burn victims yet again.


Hit, I have always loved that thing the South says about men: "He is a "Tall Cooool Drink of Water"

Anyways, Clarice, you will miss the Obamarama Oprah thing that will be delicious. Wish we could get Hit to Run down there and report.

Hillary must be seething and throwing lamps.



No wonder the NYT's is tanking

For the right-leaning Tom Maguire, it was a moment to remember all the other times that he saw hackles raised unnecessarily. “This ongoing selective outrage by the Congressional overseers is ridiculous,” he said.

UM-- NYT's blogger? Either your being intentionally disingenuous or your need to protect Democrats is so severe you just couldn't bring yourself to say it so you are pretending...TM is simply pointing out your dear, precious Dems are informed and complicit on these programs, but decide to get "outraged" when they leak to your crappy paper.

The comments to this entry are closed.