Frankly, I thinking - expecting the Spies to tell the truth is like expecting a bear not to Crap in the Woods! - but maybe that's just me.
Vyan
Anyone who thinks they have all the Answers before they've even heard the Question - is Dangerously Deluded! Real Truth Requires Vigilance, Perseverance and Courage, regardless of Party and who wields Power. Left, Right, Center, Corporations, Government, Unions, Criminals or the Indifferent.
Angry TeaPartiers are going to PAY to heckle a Professional Comediane? http://dkostv.com/r/001243 Oh That's gonna sting in the morning11:34 PM Apr 28th from web
Soufan: In my opinion, the President was told "half truth"..
11:31 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Whitehouse asks about interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and learning actionable information, including identification of Kalid S Mohammed as 911 mastermind. Then torture produced nothing. Then another approach of legal intelligent methods produced identity of Jose Padilla. Then again torture produced nothing. And once again Soufan's team was brought back in, but "contractor" insisted on torture and Soufan protested "borderline torture." At that point FBI Director Mueller asked team to cease participating. (This is an exchange between Whitehouse and Soufan, with Soufan affirming and adding to Whitehouse's points.) Soufan also confirms that Bush's public account of the interrogation was not in line with the facts.
11:37 Senator Lindsay Graham is the lone Republican here, and in fact Whitehouse is the only Democrat still here. But the room is still packed with standing in the back and people STILL waiting in the hallway to get in. Graham claims, based on nothing, that OTHER interrogations using torture DID produce some good information. (Prove it, buddy. And then explain how you know legal methods couldn't have done the same. And then explain how you're justified in violating the law and how you deal with the recruting tool you've produced for terrorists and the ways you've weakend the State Department in now discouraging crimes by other nations.)
11:40 Graham asks Addicott to confirm that intelligence is central to this war, and he agrees and says that a police force could do the non-intelligence part of it. Graham then goes on to point out (admit) that other nations view terrorist acts as crimes rather than war. Graham intends this to avoid the Geneva Conventions, but he's also just delegitimized the invasion of Afghanistan without realizing it.
11:43 Whitehouse recounting contrast of results in Abu Zubaydah interrogations some more, comparing trained experienced FBI agents with amateurish contractors -- Whitehouse says FBI v CIA is not the right comparison, that in fact CIA professionals were with Souffan and agreed with him at the field level as opposed to the private contractors. Souffan agrees and says the chief forensic psychologist for the CIA and their top interrogator agreed with him and opposed the torture, that the psychologist left even before Souffan did.
Feingold: let me be clear this so-called "enhanced interrogation" program was illegal. Nothing that I have seen, including the two memos referenced this weekend by Vice President Cheney, indicates taht the torture technique authorized by the last administration were neccessary. The former Vice President is misleading the American people when he says otherwise.
As President Bush's top lawyer, Alberto Gonzales pressed counterterror officials to use brutal interrogation techniques on terror suspect Abu Zubaydah in 2002, even when those techniques hindered Zubaydah's cooperation, a former FBI agent who was present is expected to testify Wednesday before Congress.
In the first public testimony of anyone directly involved, former bureau agent Ali Soufan is expected to directly contradict assertions by CIA officials and former Vice President Cheney that the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were successful in prying information out of al Qaeda detainees.
Cheney has said that the CIA interrogation program that began in Thailand in 2002 "saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives."
...
Soufan will testify that within an hour of Abu Zubaydah's arrival at the secret prison, he was revealing parts of the 9/11 plot and had identified the mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Soufan has contended publicly that the FBI approach to interrogation had been so successful, George Tenet ordered that the gravely ill Zubaydah be kept alive.
According to a former intelligence operative at the scene, Zubaydah's confessions and intelligence collected by Soufan and Gaudin resulted in the CIA determining that "death was not an option" for the prisoner. Tenet wanted Zubaydah kept alive, and to continue talking. A top Johns Hopkins surgeon was flown in to treat Zubaydah, and the two FBI agents helped nurse the terrorist into good health. The former operative tells ABC News that the intelligence continued to flow, as Soufan interviewed Zubaydah in the hospital while tending to his recovery. But that all ended when the CIA's team of specialists and a contractor arrived to take over interrogations.





I think she has a point, maybe it is possible that if ANY Democrat got into office, they would be protesting all the same. But there is no similar past effort to look back on to set the precedent. Instead what we see are a bunch of people who are afraid of what they view as an outsider taking office. Many think he is Muslim, they question his motives and there is a heightened level of fear in their irrational minds.
I think it is perfectly logic to believe that irrational fear is stemming from the fact that there is now a Black man in office with a Muslim sounding name. That is racism. Keep in mind that for the two or three years of the primaries (it went for ever it seemed), these were the Fox viewers being told that Obama is buddies with terrorists, that he is Muslim, that his birth records are suspect, and seeing news stories where he is often confused with Osama bin Laden.
So why is it so wrong and out of line to think that these people, who have been fed years of racist-based stories and misinformation, are racist.
And what I find hillarious is the line of questioning they give her. "The people I know who were protesting, and I only know super smart, informed, and fair and balanced people, truly believe they were being patriots." Lol. OMG that is classic. First of all, they fall for the typical BS that because you are friends with them, and agree with them, that must make you all smart, normal, nice and far people.
Second, well...if they really BELIEVE something, no matter how stupid, ignorant and misinformed and detached from reality...surely they can't possibly be criticized. Nope. Leave it to the crazy christian right to confuse their beliefs with actual reality.
Finally, they conclude by associating everything they do with patriotism. Once again proving the right has turned the word into a cliche and effectively made it a meaningless, worthless term. And Garafalo busts them for it...no they aren't patriots. If they were patriots, they wouldn't have spent the last 8 years DEFENDING and rationalizing Bush's crippling spending habits. Hell, they actually condemned anyone who did criticize Bush's spending as being shrill, America hating, vitriol and nothing more than Bush hatred. Not long ago it was patriotic to support massive spending. It was patriotic to just accept that Bush/Cheney's buddies were robbing the tax payers blind and billions were disappears and soldiers were being poisoned, etc.
Patriotism? Please. These are the same people who thought criticizing the president during a time of war was equal to treason. Now they LOVE dissent and President bashing and calling the President Hitler. Gee...what ever happened to demoralizing the troops? Patriotism? What happened to all the demonizing of the Bush protests or the many other protests that occurred over the past 8 years...all of which were much much larger than these pathetic tea-bag parties? Suddenly they all love protesting and it is the act of great American?
Sorry, if you ask me, Garafalo didn't go over the line. She should have gone further and called them ignorant, confused, misinformed Fox puppets as well.
CHENEY: I think if you look at this intelligence program that when things are quieter, 20 or 30 years from now, you’ll be able to look back on this and say this is one of the great success stories of American intelligence.
SCHIEFFER: Would you go back and talk to the Congress?
CHENEY: Certainly. I’ve made it very clear that I feel very strongly that what we did here was exactly the right thing to do. And if I don’t speak out, then where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have free run, and there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth. So it’s important — it’s important that we...
SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?
CHENEY: I’d have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn’t be out here today if I didn’t feel comfortable talking about what we’re doing publicly.
Government officials familiar with the CIA’s early interrogations say the most powerful evidence of apparent excesses is contained in the “top secret” May 7, 2004, inspector general report, based on more than 100 interviews, a review of the videotapes and 38,000 pages of documents. The full report remains closely held, although White House officials have told political allies that they intend to declassify it for public release when the debate quiets over last month’s release of the Justice Department’s interrogation memos. [...]
Although some useful information was produced, the report concluded that “it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks,” according to the Justice Department’s declassified summary of it.
"As the IG Report notes, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks. And because the CIA has used enhanced techniques sparingly, 'there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness'," Bradbury wrote, quoting the IG report.
before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, "Soon, you will know." Id. We understand that the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah, and others, by contrast, has yielded critical information. See IG Report at 86, 90-91 (describing increase in intelligence reports attributable to use of enhanced techniques). As Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, "":"brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have 'reached the limit of their ability to withhold ie in the face of psychological and physicaI hardships." Effectiveness Memo at 2. And,indeed, we understand that since the use of enhanced. techniques, "KSM and Abu Zubaydah have been pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of terrorists,"
THIESSEN: The CIA developed these alternative interrogation techniques, and all of a sudden he started talking. Zubaydah’s information led us to Ramsey bin al Shibh, who was was one of the 9/11 hijackers. Together, they gave us the information that led the capture of KSM. Then, KSM gave us information about another al Qaeda operative, Majid Khan, who was in CIA custody. He told us that Majid Khan had been tasked to give $50,000 to an operative named Zubair, who was developing plots with a Southeast Asian group called JI.
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.