Comments on: Pelosi’s Advisory On Abu Zubaydah And Torture

By: CalGal

CalGal — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:07:20 +0000

The CIA faked a letter from the Minister of the Interior of Niger.

Faking internal memoranda is a SNAP compared to that.

By: timtimes

timtimes — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:10:23 +0000

Bingo. We have a winner.

Enjoy.

By: timr

timr — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:26:01 +0000

To right. We should not blindly say that the dems are innocent. Let all the evidence be known, then let us see who shares the guilt. Then dem or rethug, let justice be done.
You are also 100% right that no politician can be trusted. Indeed, some of them-both parties- have done some very bad things while in congress. In fact several FedGov-black- agencies have documented proof(kind of like back in day when J Edgar blackmailed congress) and over the last 40 or so years have not been afraid to use it to get their way. Our govt is corrupt-not much better than the govt of say, Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia and the old USSR politbureau-, the sooner that everyoe understands that, the better.

By: acquarius74

acquarius74 — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:08:13 +0000

I think that info on the 2 requirements for any covert operation by CIA is in my book, The Secret Team, by L. Fletcher Prouty. He was the original ‘briefer’ who was go-between the CIA and the directors of the other executive agencies. His own personal story is fascinating. For those who do not know of him, just Google: The Secret Team and read the Preface. The entire 400+ pages are online. The CIA is not and never was what the propaganda sells it as.

I’m no fan of Pelosi after she took impeachment off the table. She’s in a battle of wits and intrigue now like never before. Historically the CIA does not tolerate those who might reveal their dark secrets.

ROTL, are you familiar with this author and his 2 main books?

By: sadlyyes

sadlyyes — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:28:12 +0000

muddy hte waters with squid ink so everybody is mentioned and the media,calls everyone complicit

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Fri, 08 May 2009 06:21:53 +0000

As it pertains here as well, see my comment #18 on the next thread.

By: AKSteve

AKSteve — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:49:11 +0000

My thoughts exactly.
What actually happens at such a briefing? Is it a one-way information session? What can the Congressperson actually do here? If she objects, what impact does that have? It’s supposed to be a high level of confidentiality. So if she objected and was rebuffed in the hearing, who could she have told? What would that have led to?

These are not exactly rhetorical questions. What are the guidelines for a committee member who has a problem with what she hears? I guess she can write a letter for the record. She can ask the other members of the committee to convene. But less than a year after 9/11? What sort of traction would she get? Again, it seems to me she could get something down for the record, but I’m not sure who would be the keeper of this record.

Her blocking of the impeachment initiatives raises questions, but a person could genuinely believe this was not a productive avenue. This doesn’t prove she was just protecting herself.

I’m with BMAZ too. This is not a partisan issue now, this is about justice, about the US as a model in the world, about warning future administrations that they won’t get a pass. Guilty Dems should face the music as well as guilty Repubs.

So, in determining whether someone like Pelosi should be investigated, if in fact she had been told what was happening early on, I’d need to know:

What power did she have to affect what was going on?

(Sources like Charlie Wilson’s War suggest there’s the power of the purse potentially, but what else?)

By: JohnJ

JohnJ — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:46:01 +0000

One note:

Bob Graham quit not long after all this shit started. I remember saying to myself that he saw something that disgusted him and he was afraid to say anything, security clearance and all.

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:35:56 +0000

…there are 2 requirements for any covert operation: ((1) plausible denyability (sp?) and (2) a scapegoat.

Interesting.
We’ve had more than our fair share of both.

By: acquarius74

acquarius74 — Fri, 08 May 2009 05:28:21 +0000

I have several books on the CIA, and can’t pin the following line down to which one it is in. (it’s after midnight – tired, etc). That line is that there are 2 requirements for any covert operation: (1) plausible denyability (sp?) and (2) a scapegoat.