Comments (14)

Dennis wrote on December 24, 2007 1:07 PM:

Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 1:29 PM:

CIA DO statements on Cheney involvement with the CIA tape destruction should not be immunized, but part of the impeachment investigation into Cheney.

Congress? "Oh, we only have time to look at steroids."

Dee Illuminati wrote on December 24, 2007 3:09 PM:

Time to get out the popcorn.

An old Mayagüez and Fema proverb states: "never ask somebody smarter than yourself to do something that you yourself are not dumb enough to do."

LOL!

The Times Online article: 12/23

CIA chief to drag White House into torture cover-up storm

by

Sarah Baxter

Pretty well sums up my previously posted proposition on this website when this story first broke, that Jose Rodriguez would seek and receive immunity in exchange for his testimony.

I guess I saw this coming for years. It is not as if any intelligent person did not. I mean it is a calculated principle of hegelian blowback to have factored this event into the horizon.

And the Times Online paints a picture of the tapes being viewed by the POTUS (with or without popcorn?) is not provided, but nonetheless to be an interesting detail when this story unfolds.

The (911 commission's tapes of ommission) 'that has a nice rhyme' makes the case even more interesting and will hang the event around the neck of CIA for the forseeable future, not withstanding any press release by CIA to the contrary.

I guess that as the product of intelligence 'hay una gran trecho' than the facts, and that the neoconservatives assumptions and acts became even more 'unusual' that certain parties started purchasing put options to limit their losses, or to create a pool of assets for the future~ well I guess that Jose guy doesn't make the same mistakes twice and has drawn a line of demarcation between weebee and the appointees.

I guess the product became more and more embarrasing. There were circumstances where confessions covered events that contradicted one-another, where confessions claimed to have committed crimes and events that were mutually exclusive of one another, and that was the 'product' as it did a lot of 'splainin' to those desperate for a narative that would fit radical neoconservative agendas.

And ohhh how that narrative changes.

One simple question, what happened to the copy of the tape that the POTUS viewed? Where did that screening occur and what was the chain of custody of the tapes in that narrative?

Yep herding cats, manipulating manipulators, and asking smart folk to do somthing that you are not yourself dumb enough to do is a waste of time, if your not going to be around for accountability.

To see how this all plays out will be fascinating, I wonder whom will be left holding this bag of caca? Eye will be tuned in to see how this all washes out.. but I'm reminded of passing around a bong in the back seat of a car after johhny law has it pulled over and is approaching the window...

stay tuned...

Time to get out the popcorn.

ginny wrote on December 24, 2007 7:04 PM:

Groupthink takes on new meaning.

Propagandee wrote on December 24, 2007 10:18 PM:

Looks like we're caught in an infinite regress:

Who will guard the guardians guarding the guardians...

Anonymous wrote on December 25, 2007 8:56 AM:

The CIA under Bush/Cheney has become nothing more than a "political" weapon to silence dissent and punish critics within and outside American government. Today's CIA isn't protecting our citizens from foreign enemies, it's protecting the American government from American enemies. I never thought I'd live to see the day where the head of the CIA is a willing political pawn in a transparent governmental cover-up of titanic dishonesty, corruption and malfeasance.

DallasNE wrote on December 25, 2007 9:43 AM:

The theatre of the absurd now playing.

It looks like they are pulling out all stops in an effort to keep the lid on this thing.

I have said from the beginning that this was a Cheney hit job. Addington is Cheney's eyes and ears and he has not been heard from even though he was one of the 4 lawyers identified as weighing in on the destruction of the CIA tapes.

This investigation of the investigator can only have a chilling effect on what people are willing to say and who they are willing to say it to. My guess is that we will have a new CIA Director in 2009. Hopefully, that will end the parade of clowns holding that office for the last several years.

Dee Illuminati wrote on December 25, 2007 9:54 AM:

As far as guardians go, and a message to the left:

Michael Scheuer whom wrote Imperial Hubris, put in a 'ticking bomb scenario' would take a blow torch to you. He is often a darling of the left, and a guardian of the guardians.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, put in a 'ticking bomb scenario' would take a blow torch to you. Both bona-fide darlings of the left and guardians guarding the guardians.

What pisses me off is the false proposition that somehow the US is weak when we take tortue off the table, nothing is further from the truth.

We get bad intel and alienate assets whom would work for free based on the simple proposition of rule of law and a little better benevolent dictator than what there people have.

America is OK.. just going through some blow back of frankly in hindsight was a ridiculous and ineffective policy.

Tradition and taboo point the way by years of trial and error what is right and wrong.

But laughing... the two darlings of the left, both bona fide guardians of the guardians, if put in the lurid and insidious and false choice of a ticking bomb scenario, would use a blow torch and stand jury nullification.

never doubt it for a moment...

America should sleep well remembering that.

Torture was an abomination of a policy. It was political theatre indeed, and cdetrimental to US policy and intelligence efforts.

John Rogers wrote on December 25, 2007 11:26 AM:

The CIA is an intellegence tool. The CIA does not act as an independent entity
and should not be treated as the scape goat. Like any tool, there is someone responsible for weilding it power. To blame the CIA for any action taken, or a mess that has not been cleaned up,somewhere in the world is to
do this very powerful and focused intelligence tool a diservice. I have seen too many Presidents directing the power that this tool projects, only to find out that they have created a Bon Fire that is beyond their control. Rather than take responsibility, they throw the tool down and point their finger at and say, look its broken. You would not expect a table saw to clean up its own sawdust, and likewise you can't expect the CIA to clean up after our Presidents.

Charles Koontz wrote on December 25, 2007 2:16 PM:

This may not get very far. If it goes on too long someone is going to ask what CIA employees actually made the video and what else have they been recording. Seems unlikely they outsourced the video making. So expect a cutout somewhere on that trail. No one in the National Security network wants that video unit exposed.

Grammatica wrote on December 26, 2007 2:40 AM:

Dee Illuminati:

I find that many of your posts are thought provoking and well reasoned. However, I simply must write to you about your use of "whom."

"Michael Scheuer whom wrote Imperial Hubris, put in a 'ticking bomb scenario' would take a blow torch to you."

"We get bad intel and alienate assets whom would work for free based on the simple proposition of rule of law and a little better benevolent dictator than what there people have."

I could go through a whole explanation about relative clauses, but it boils down to this: If your relative pronoun (who, which, that, whose, and whom) has a verb following it, the relative pronoun MUST be in the subject form. The subject form is "who," not "whom."

Your sentence should read:
"Michael Scheuer, who wrote Imperial Hubris, put in a 'ticking bomb scenario' would take a blow torch to you."

(Please also note that I added a comma before "who," because this relative clause needs to be set off by commas because it is non-restrictive--is not required for the reader to understand the sentence--and it occurs in the middle of a sentence.)

And this one should read:
"We get bad intel and alienate assets who would work for free, based on the simple proposition of rule of law and a little better benevolent dictator than what there people have."

Here you have a restrictive relative clause (necessary for meaning), and while it do not require a comma, it still requires the subject form of the relative pronoun.

(I added a comma before "based," because you have an independent clause coming before a dependent clause that gives further information but is not required to create a complete sentence. The sentence is complete ending with "work for free."

Want to know how to make sure you're using the correct form? Turn the phrase into a question.

Whom wrote Imperial Hubris?

It doesn't work; you need "who."

Whom would work for free?

Ditto.

Doing this will lend greater weight to your arguments. It is much more difficult to ignore a good argument that is formed correctly.

judyinnm wrote on December 26, 2007 3:56 PM:

Grammatica: Thank you for your post. It saved me having to write it.

Dee Illuminati wrote on December 26, 2007 10:18 PM:

David Addington and the crowd.. jeesch... I liked the post on the table "saw not cleaning up after itself..."

Noticed that operation Condor has made some arrests in italy...

cambodia has a war crimes tribunal..

etc...

My point is this, is that many people were guardians, and remain so.

Shindski was a guardian, the guy who went after the VPOTUS and the security compliance, was a guardian.

What really pisses me off??

David Addington and jis ilk telling us that our system is broken...

its a lie.. slow system <> broken system

I hope Yoo, Addington, and the rest of the radical neocons are held responsible.

Signed...

still GOP with poor gramar skills

And heh.. being GOP <> radical neocon.

:)

judyinnm wrote on December 26, 2007 10:40 PM:

Dee I.: Huh?