
It's hardly news that Dick Cheney isn't likely to win any prizes for honesty any time soon. But yesterday offered yet another exhibit in the case.
During the debate over torture this spring, Cheney claimed that CIA memos, which he had asked to be declassified, would prove that torture proved effective in obtaining actionable intelligence.
Well, yesterday, those memos were released, along with the CIA inspector general's report. And, surprise surprise, they don't begin to show what Cheney said they did.
The memos, from 2004 and 2005, do say that some detainees, particularly Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, gave up useful information during debriefing sessions. But nowhere do they suggest that that information was gleaned through torture.
Indeed, as Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent shows, most of the evidence suggests they came through traditional interrogation techniques. As Spencer puts it: "Cheney's public account of these documents have conflated the difference between information acquired from detainees, which the documents present, and information acquired from detainees through the enhanced interrogation program, which they don't."
It's no wonder that in his response to the memos' release, Cheney is reduced to playing silly semantic games that a reasonably intelligent junior high-schooler could see through. "The documents released Monday," said Cheney in a statement, "clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda." That's true, but it's totally different from Cheney's earlier claim -- that the documents would show it was the EITs themselves that elicited the information.
Human rights organizations are making similar points. Gitanjali Gutierrez of the Center for Constitutional Rights said the documents "don't make the case for torture, they only show that the CIA is able to tailor documents to justify its actions after the fact." And Tom Parker of Amnesty International added that the memos "are hardly the slam dunk we had been led to expect. There is little or no supporting evidence in either memo to give substance to the specific claims about impending attacks made by Khalid Shaik Mohammed in highly coercive circumstances."
Over at the Plum Line, Greg Sargent makes a good additional point. The mainstream media trumpeted Cheney's lies about what the documents show. But now that they've been made public and they contradict his claims, most reporters seem to have lost interest.
And, no doubt, when Cheney or his daughter want to go public with their next set of self-justifying crap, they'll be welcomed as authorities, as if none of this ever happened.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

JosephP
August 25, 2009 11:28 AM
"The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals that exhaled carbon dioxide provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda."
Cheney is such a mendacious liar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
August 25, 2009 11:49 AM
The first sentence of your article is how every article written about Cheney should begin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheraP
August 25, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to PorkBelly
Amen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
August 25, 2009 3:45 PM in reply to PorkBelly
Shorter headline: "Cheney's Lips Move"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 25, 2009 11:55 AM
Will the MSM call the guy a "liar"?
Will they report this as a "lie"
Why is the MSM so allergic to calling a lie a lie??????
MSM = cowards
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
August 25, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
MSM = peons of our Corporatist Overlords
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
August 25, 2009 6:36 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
If only the MSM were "cowards"; then they could be shamed into changing their ways. The truth is, they are the whores of the Military Industrial Complex. Why do you think it can be that we are fighting two wars -- two! -- with no reason or justification? Just because little Georgie Porgie wanted to watch things blow up? No, because the people who make money from blowing things up wanted it, and still do. The MSM is their handmaiden, acting out of pure corporate self-interest, not cowardice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
August 25, 2009 11:56 AM
Of course Cheney will invent some Fantasy World concoction that the docs actually prove torture worked. They are a sick people. It's beyond me how someone with 5 deferments from military service can be viewed as such a tough, macho, manly patriot whose every word is a guiding light for the future of our country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dave.1967
August 25, 2009 12:43 PM in reply to Chris
That is the way our United States currently work. Most veterans are not tough talkers, and understand that rhetoric disappears on the battle field. Most of the veterans that I know (including myself) consider themselves liberals or moderates. Most of the conservatives I know never served. As soon as I tell a conservative that I served, AND don't agree with their opinions, they immediately start maligning my service career. More than one has told me that I probably got kicked out for being gay (I'm not), rather than accepting (without proof - and I don't carry my DD214 in my wallet...) that I was honorably discharged, and just happen to disagree with them.
Tough talk does not make a man, responsible and honorable action make a man.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
August 25, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to dave.1967
Right on! I hope you read my reply because you are so accurate that you should be on CNN or MSNBC or whatever news outlet, repeating this over and over again. First, thank you for your service. And secondly, why is that the fattest most out of shape lazy imbecile who couldn't pass PT, much less a physical examination the most "patriotic" and war loving people in America?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twoviragos
August 25, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to Chris
Chris, you ask: "why is that the fattest most out of shape lazy imbecile who couldn't pass PT, much less a physical examination the most "patriotic" and war loving people in America?"
I have always thought that kind of patriotism is surface over substance. Based on what I have seen in the past few months, a lot of conservatives (not all, but a lot) don't have the intellectual chops to go much deeper than a flag lapel pin in their notion of patriotism. It's as though many of them believe that patriotism means not questioning or thinking deeply about the most important of issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
August 25, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to Chris
Which fatso are you referring to? Limbaugh or Hannity?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
August 25, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to Chris
Why is it the conservatives think talking tough is enough and actually fighting a war is for someone else? Because they are cowards to the bone and talk is all they have to give. The whole conservative mindset is to rationalize and project personal weakness onto others. From the whoring and blatant sexual perversion of the family values crowd to the warmongering of the chickenhawks, the underlying process at work is to project your weakness on others. The problem for the rest of us is that these sociopaths actually believe their own bullshit. They rant and cry and bitterly complain about the mess they make of everything they touch as if passionate lies are some religious ritual of forgiveness. George Bush is exhibit #1 of a Vietnam chickenhawk who came in his pants everytime Dick and Rummy rubbed their neocon balls together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
August 25, 2009 12:00 PM
Let's not forget the reason Cheney was going on a media blitz earlier this year -- he was shopping his memoirs to various publishing companies, and wanted to drive up his asking price by showing how relevant he still supposedly is to the national debate.
Of course the corporate media will be only too happy to help Tricky Dick Cheney with his campaign of lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes1
August 25, 2009 12:00 PM
Of course Cheney is sounding off and trying to kick up sand to blind all who dare to look. Any serious investigation of the probable high crimes of the Bush Administration, I'd lay good money, will lead right to him.
However, I am skeptical to say the least, about the appointment of another republican (especially one with direct links to Kevin O'Connor) to investigate probable crimes originating from the Republican Vice President's office. I fail to understand why Democrats have to hire Republicans. Perhaps it's because Republicans are not known to be as timid, even cowardly, as Democrats? I'll buy that much!
I will give John Durham the benefit of the doubt, and we will see if he cares more for impartial investigations than party loyalty. If he does, then we will see if top Bush administration officials will still, without consequence, ignore subpoenas as they did with the cowardly Democratic congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marioth
August 25, 2009 12:23 PM
I notice the Lizard Cheney has not been on the newzies lately. Perhaps she realizes her spew has another name: grand jury testimony.
I believe two words sum up the hornet's nest the prosecutor is about to enter: Archibald Cox.
Evidence will expand the scope. This is one measure we'll have of progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
L-DUB
August 25, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to Marioth
I suspect Liz Cheney wil be on TV any day now telling the same lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
August 25, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to L-DUB
I'm betting she'll be on Faux News this afternoon and CNN tonight. Lou Dobbs will probably put her on. Then she'll be on Press the Meat on Sunday (or maybe her DaDa will be).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 25, 2009 12:27 PM
Hobbes1: Meh, One group doesn't listen to summons from a congress (Clinton administration) so are we surprised that reversing the two parties sides on the matter would change a status-quo?
Once we accepted and allowed one administration to do this, it has become acceptable for all of them to do this. That's just how it works.
If you don't stop it from taking place, a precedence is set and then we're all in a uphill battle.
Here is a question:
Now if someone MIGHT know where your Child is, and that child may be killed soon, you're not sure. Would you support Enhanced Interrogation of that person? I would.
You see movies all the time where the protagonist is made a hero and people cheer him for going to extremes to find their loved one.
As a Side note, I was against the Patriot Act before it even Passed, and I'm a conservative that supported the Republican administration at the time. But I'm a huge privacy advocate, so all my friends knew I was against it. Including the liberal ones who said "if it stopped another 9/11 then it was worth it." and later was up in arms against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
August 25, 2009 12:45 PM in reply to Garlyn
Now if someone MIGHT know where your Child is, and that child may be killed soon, you're not sure. Would you support Enhanced Interrogation of that person?
I would not.
I would not because so-called EIT - you know, torture - isn't just immoral, it's also ineffective.
So you've got this guy, and he knows where your child is, and that child might be killed soon. We've got to assume in your example that he is hostile to you, otherwise he'd be offering the information and helping you out. This means that he wants you to not find your child.
If you use 'EIT' on him, he will pretty much say anything to get it to stop. But that doesn't mean he'll tell you the truth. He'll say something you can't trust, but also can't afford to ignore. You will have gone from not knowing where your child is to not knowing even whether or not you know. Resources will need to be sent to investigate what will, in all likelihood, be a false lead. He will lie, and the lie will make the torture stop while the lie is checked out. And the next time? He will still lie, because the lie will still work, because you cannot afford to disregard what he says.
He will lie, and the time you could have been searching, or investigators could have been establishing a rapport, will be lost. And the odds are pretty good your child will be dead long before he stops lying. Because he knows if he can keep lying, the torture will stop - which he wants, and you will run out of time - which he wants. So he'll win.
This is the problem with every 'ticking bomb' scenario - all the bad guy has to do is lie, and he'll win. And the chances are pretty good that he knows that. That's why all the reliable intelligence from these prisoners was gained before the use of EIT. Once you start torturing, you can't trust the answers, and if you can't trust the answers, why the hell did you us torture to get them? All you've done is reduce what you know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
August 25, 2009 12:52 PM in reply to BillMcD
And, for the record, all of this presumes he even knows. Your hypothetical says he 'MIGHT'. So now you've wasted all this time, and all this effort... and what if he never knew to begin with? He could never have given you the right answer, and you can now never trust him when he says he doesn't know.
So you've managed to waste time, resources, and effort... to get even farther from having any idea where your child is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 27, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to BillMcD
I did say MIGHT intentionally. That was the premise, and truthfully I don't know the all the techniques the EIT covers. The one we always hear about is WaterBoarding.
You may be right, he may lie. But if he is willing to lie how would building any rapport make him tell the truth?
If with EIT you have multiple people telling you the Same lie you may be more apt to believe it. Sure they may have a concerted effort and a scripted Lie. But much like other groups that contrive a coverup, the differences in details show up.
You bring up some valid points though, and I will not just idly dismiss them. It is a tough choice, but personally I would because of the situation I stated. Even with a Maybe. Yes they would be involved somehow in the whole activity that occurred, but they may or may not be privy to the information I need. If the first techniques don't succeed with in a time frame that is justifiable, then yes EIT would be employed.
Now the question of "Justifiable Time frame"...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Savannah Evans
August 25, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to Garlyn
My answer to your hypothetical: I have two young children, love them dearly of course, and would do anything to protect them. As a result, if their lives were in danger and we had a suspect in custody, I would of course want the truth to be obtained as quickly as possible. So naturally I would not want the suspect to be tortured, as history has taught us that torture gets you confessions but not the truth. I've no doubt that the instructors who teach SERE training would take the same position for the same reasons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
August 25, 2009 12:57 PM in reply to Garlyn
OH. You see it in the MOVIES. Then it MUST work.
Lawdy lawdy how some peoples are gullible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrBB
August 25, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Plus it gots footnotes, this rachyere Regnery Publish book I gots. Footnotes! Refute *that*, ya feckless lefty barstid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 27, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to Cal Gal
There were some vary valid points by many people. CalGal, it is just interesting to me that so many people that cheer these movies and are like "right on man" for the protagonist are against it in real life. At Least among the people I've discussed this issue with that I know well. So they obviously have conflicting opinions in their heart somewhere based on how the story is presented?
There have been some very valid points about Torture, in reply to my question. what all does EIT (Which I honestly don't know) cover, and is it torture? I should investigate this definition more, but besides water boarding I haven't heard anything that really pushes that limit.
In response to SERE methods. In the SERE training students have safety words to get out of it. How is it not torture when it is so bad that people would use safety words, but can't in the real world application? Where does the definition of Torture really start, blur and cross in the different techniques?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
August 28, 2009 9:36 AM in reply to Garlyn
The United States Government defined waterboarding as torture soon after World War 2 when that United States Government tried, convicted, and executed Japanese for torture (waterboarding).
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrBB
August 25, 2009 3:01 PM in reply to Garlyn
Ah yes, argument from teevee shows, films and comic book superheros. The favorite form of rightwing fantasists. Just had to be in there somewhere. Apparently reality doesn't give 'em the answers they want. Must be annoying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
August 25, 2009 5:49 PM in reply to Garlyn
I see movies all the time where people travel backward and forward in time. Doesn't mean I think it works in the real world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 25, 2009 12:30 PM
As another note, as someone who reads conservative and liberal blogs.
I find it amazing how everyone seems to be upset with the media regardless of which side of the fence they are on.
Almost like everyone agrees the media has an agenda, but Liberals believe it is to support conservatives, and conservatives believe it is to support liberals.
I wonder why the Fairness doctrine that they are trying to re-enact wouldn't be applied to Television news, which is the main stream just like radio was when it was enacted the first time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
August 25, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to Garlyn
The Fairness Doctrine who is trying to re-enact?
If the Fairness Doctrine, which stated that if you gave time to one group or agenda, you had to give matching time to the other side of the issue, were restored (because 're-enact' makes me think of a bunch of guys in Civil War uniforms reading the news on TV), it would be applied across the board, which is part of why nobody's trying to restore it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Savannah Evans
August 25, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to BillMcD
The practical problem I've got with any Fairness Doctrine is the fact that most matters have more than the proverbial "two sides."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
August 25, 2009 12:53 PM in reply to Savannah Evans
Indeedy. Usually there's a whole host of complexities to consider.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
August 25, 2009 5:54 PM in reply to Savannah Evans
Not to mention that sometimes the "other side" of the issue is total nonsense, and it is misleading to give it equal weight with more rigorously constructed ideas. Cf: Evolution through natural selection vs Creationism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
August 25, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to Garlyn
And it WAS applied to TV before our Corporatist Overlords had their puppets in Congress repeal it.
BTW, I don't think anyone is trying to reinstate it because it was premised on public ownership of the airwaves, and the airwaves provide only a small fraction of news coverage on TV today.
Faux News, for example, being a cable channel, would not be subject to it, nor would MSNBC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
August 25, 2009 1:25 PM in reply to Garlyn
but Liberals believe it is to support conservatives, and conservatives believe it is to support liberals
And some liberals think that the media don't necessarily have an agenda other than to make lots of money, which encourages laziness in reporting and investigating. How many conservatives share this view, one that doesn't have active conspiratorial conniving at its core? Not many I suspect.
Fox is basically the Republican News Network (RNN) - that much is abundantly clear. You really can't make the parallel accusation toward the other news networks or the old broadcast news even - it's just not true. The non-Fox networks are however sometimes lazy and fearful, which does tend to serve conservative interests, although I don't believe that equates to 'having an agenda'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chabuka
August 25, 2009 12:42 PM
Americans have forgotten, we "got" those who committed 9/11..fifteen of those nineteen terrorists were Saudi Arabian citizens (not Afghanistans or Iraqi's)...and they all died on 9/11, along side the innocents of 9/11....(so what was the CIA doing with and to, these prisoners, these other "suspects"...?) Obviously Cheney/Bush/CIA/etc., are lying..seems this torture program, had little to do with preventing "another terrorist" attack or plot....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmgary
August 25, 2009 1:03 PM
does anyone know if Holder has promised immunity to anyone? Implicitly, yes. But explicitly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chabuka
August 25, 2009 1:12 PM
Garlyn...torture and lying about it, is not a "right v left" issue..its a "wrong v right" issue...unlike a blow job and lying about that (for which Clinton was impeached) Torture is abhorrent and it breaks the U.S. Laws, military code and also, International Laws and Treaties ...The passage of the Patriot Act..was pretty much a Republican Majority, Congressional "slam-dunk"..., some on the left were fooled too..does that make them worse, better or about the same, as those on the right..? You got nothing, but your bitter hatred.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 27, 2009 11:58 AM in reply to Chabuka
There is no hate actually. I have really enjoyed the views expressed here and don't believe I've attacked anyone in any of my posts.
In fact the reason I do like it is because people like BillMcD, CalGal and others do bring things to my attention that I pursue and learn more about.
I really enjoy the wealth of information wrought from discussion and opposing views.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 25, 2009 1:16 PM
Garylyn seems to be one of those apologists who, when he sees conservatives like Cheney caught red handed in another lie to justify his wholly ineffective strategies says, "well, both sides do it." Typical conservative talking point. Yeah, both sides formed an Iraq Study Group years before 9-11. Both sides concocted the yellow cake story. Both sides committed treason by outing Valerie Plame. Right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nquotes
August 25, 2009 1:32 PM
Cheney doesn't like drifting off into retirement.. http://www.enewsreference.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLaszlo
August 25, 2009 1:33 PM
Cheney claimed that CIA memos... would prove that torture proved effective in obtaining actionable intelligence.
What's his point? AFAIK there's no exception for torture that 'worked.'
Sure, we should point out that he's lying. But the much more important point is that it doesn't matter one way or the other.
If he approved torture, he's a criminal. The 'success' or 'failure' of that torture is completely irrelevant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marioth
August 25, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to VictorLaszlo
Well, this is just it. Dead-Eye Dick thinks he can spin the legal system.
Look, the govt. is a mostly blind, terribly deaf overweight elephant that notices almost nothing. But once it decides you are a peanut, you are finished.
May the Spirit of Archibald Cox be upon ye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
August 25, 2009 1:34 PM
Ah, Cheney. The first (and richest) VP in US history to be provided Secret Service protection after leaving office. Truly money well spent. You couldn't possibly find a more deserving statesman.
But wouldn't he be better protected with the 24/7 security provided at "the Castle" in Leavenworth?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
carwinrpc
August 25, 2009 1:35 PM
I'm sure that when the Cheneys go on the teevee to talk about what a disaster Obama's leadership is and what a Golden Era the Bush Presidency was that they will continue to cite this report as prooof that torture works. And just as surely, no one on the media will challenge the brazen lie.
What I can't puzzle out is whether their interviewers see these lies for what they are and are just intimidated or whether they just blindly accept whatever they are told by Republican thugs. I wish I knew.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marioth
August 25, 2009 1:45 PM in reply to carwinrpc
What I can't puzzle out is whether their interviewers see these lies for what they are and are just intimidated or whether they just blindly accept whatever they are told by Republican thugs. I wish I knew.
If we recall that Loyalty, above all else, was THE test for any Bush/Cheney operative, we are led to much more of the latter, and very few of the former.
To cross the line into some serious mentally ill sick shit (182 times was not quite enough), only a zealot's oath of fealty to the crusade provides the kind of blinders you'd need not to expire from the shame of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 25, 2009 1:53 PM
GOP's MO:
Lie, lie, lie .. .when called on it, get on TV 24x7 and pound the lie even further.
MSM's response: bendover backwards to give the liars more airtime to lie and spin, and call the whole thing a "controversy".
Yes, and Hitler's claims about Jews in the 1930s were "controversial".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 27, 2009 11:33 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
And Hitler's claims that the Government can fix your problems were welcomed as he socialized Germany.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toomuchpr
August 25, 2009 1:53 PM
The ends don't justify the means. The ends don't justify the means. The ends don't justify the means. The ends don't justify the means.
So why in the hell are we even debating whether or not torture and CIA methods result in captures?
This is a "teachable moment" ... some heads need to roll. Obama doesn't get it. It's time to restrict the foreign travel of Bush admin top officials.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marioth
August 25, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to toomuchpr
You know, I actually think this is coming, both speech and restrictions. This is some sick shit. Once the August Asylum comes to an end, and heads clear, it is going to dawn on some people that they are in real legal jeopardy that cannot be spun on T.V. The Portent is when they all clam up at once.
It also means a long period of Obama being forced to utter the words, "I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation." This is why he needs the speech, and early. It will be a tough one to give, and to hear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
August 25, 2009 3:45 PM in reply to toomuchpr
No, it's time to encourage them to visit countries where they can be arrested and sent to the Hague.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
August 25, 2009 6:27 PM in reply to BillMcD
No; that pushes the responsibility for dealing with this onto other countries. These are American miscreants, and the U.S. should step up to the plate and see that they are prosecuted and appropriately punished. If we can't do that, then our lofty rhetoric about human rights and justice and the rule of law are just so many empty words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
August 25, 2009 8:09 PM in reply to slb
I agree with you 100% there. But even if, as a nation, all our rhetoric is empty, these people should be held accountable. If our government is too craven, then we as individuals should support the efforts of others.
It's important that we clean up our messes, yes. It's more important, though, that they get cleaned up. I'm hopeful this probe will result in an expanding trail of evidence that results in conspiracy charges. But even if we fail, justice must not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
August 25, 2009 2:06 PM
The ends don't justify the means ... and the "ends" failed spectacularly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
August 25, 2009 2:33 PM
Remind me again why Republicans stand for family values.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drmoore
August 25, 2009 3:21 PM
If the Bush2s travel out of the country is restricted, it would be probably be saving their lives and at the least sparing them from rotting in some prison in Old Europe. Old Europe's legal system or Israel or Egypt, or etc. are waiting for these guys to touch down on their soil to do the old sack over the head routine and wisk them to an undisclosed location to try them for crimes against humanity. These guys (and Harriet) are scared to pieces to leave American soil. They're legally dead meat outside of the U.S..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
August 25, 2009 3:44 PM
His words be lies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
August 25, 2009 6:35 PM
If only the MSM were "cowards"; then they could be shamed into changing their ways. The truth is, they are the whores of the Military Industrial Complex. Why do you think it can be that we are fighting two wars -- two! -- with no reason or justification? Just because little Georgie Porgie wanted to watch things blow up? No, because the people who make money from blowing things up wanted it, and still do. The MSM is their handmaiden, acting out of pure corporate self-interest, not cowardice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vueartist
August 26, 2009 1:33 AM
I don't know about anyone else but I'm starting to question the big medias honesty, ha ha ha - had you going there for a second - but no.
How is it that a political party can continually tell "journalists" lies that they, unthinkingly and unconfirmed report as news? What people say is not always true - especially if they refer to a higher power (like wack from Minnesota) - how to report religious beliefs and report this politically is impossible. Just like in the Bible says, "There is a time for everything and a place for everything" and let it be so!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 6, 2010 4:19 PM
And it WAS applied to TV before our Corporatist Overlords had their puppets in Congress repeal it.
BTW, I don't think anyone is trying to reinstate it because it was premised on public ownership of the airwaves, and the airwaves provide only a small fraction of news coverage on TV today.
Faux News, for example, being a cable channel, would not be subject to it, nor would MSNBC.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?