Comments on: Judge Hellerstein Calls the CIA on its BS

By: JodiDog

JodiDog — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:32:20 +0000

As I understand it Mary, they got information that could be confirmed.

As far as confessions are concerned, torture is useless.

But to find the bodies, the people, the bombs, locations, times, etc., useful information can be obtained and verified.

As for war, well let us quote Sherman: “War is hell.”

As for my satisfaction, the truth, and facts will suffice.

And ridding the world of AQ and OBL will help also.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:38:51 +0000

51 - Exactly so - after all, having someone cry Uncle means that the arm twister actually is their Uncle, everyone knows that. That’s how it “works” You torture, then someone quickly says what you want to hear. Like how well torture worked to get the ~~information~~ fiction about Hussein’s al-Qaeda training camps.

Sure was dramatic enough for me. Also for them:

http://tbn0.google.com/images?.....426-02.jpg

http://www.amputee-coalition.o.....pper02.jpg

http://www.johnmurphyforcongre.....ning2.jpeg

But I can see you are still in search of drama. The vicarious kind. Since limbs blown apart, lives sacrificed on the altar of tortured lies, and and orphaned, injured children in refugee camps haven’t quite satisfied your sense of drama yet, a blog isn’t really likely to sate your desires.

By: JodiDog

JodiDog — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:46:42 +0000

35 seconds to work, Mary!

Is that dramatic enough for you?

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 04:33:35 +0000

There is a former maybe 2002 2004 Company atty writing from a somewhat different perspective at U Pitt.

By: klynn

klynn — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:28:23 +0000

It’s a bit late for Fratto to be carting out that “alternate reality” explanation of “what missing email?” Amazing. Filipino Monkey, now this? I need to go put my boots on and grab a shovel.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:14:08 +0000

Basically exactly right - Fratto is taking the line, in part, that there is no way to have evidence of the absence of data. So nobody can know that there’s something to know about the absence of email.

Which is wrong, but nevertheless.

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:09:55 +0000

“Got that? No way of showing that any e-mail at all are missing. In other words, the White House is going to attempt to say nobody knows and nobody can know whether there are any missing emails.”

So let me see if I got this straight.

First there are the things that we know we know.

Then there are the things that we know we don’t know.

But then there are the things that we don’t know that we don’t know.

I believe that’s how some wiseguy over in DOD explained things once upon a time.

Bob in HI

By: watercarrier4diogenes

watercarrier4diogenes — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:22:55 +0000

OOPS!! And me a life-long MacAddict… .mov indeed!

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:05:21 +0000

These clucks aren’t even trying anymore. This has been an issue now, at a minimum, since Fitzgerald asked for emails. What is that, two years? You either have them or you don’t. I f you have them, produce the; if you don’t, lets get on with deciding what to do about the crimes that have been committed by way of their knowing or reckless destruction. This is just plain stupid.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:58:59 +0000

There’s a new AP piece by Yost reporting on the official White House line. So far it looks like te key White House line is this:

“We have no evidence and we have no way of showing that any e-mail at all are missing.”

Got that? No way of showing that any e-mail at all are missing. In other words, the White House is going to attempt to say nobody knows and nobody can know whether there are any missing emails.

But as the article itself shows everything that has been already said to the contrary by the White House and the administration itself, I don’t think that line is going to last very long.