They Really Don’t Want Us Learning About the Torture Tapes, Do They?

I noted several weeks ago that Bob Bennett sounded an awful lot like he was beginning to float excuses for his client, Jose Rodriguez, to ask for immunity before he testified before Congress.

The article also includes a clear signal from the masterful press manipulator, Bob Bennett, that he intends to advise his client John Jose Rodriguez to plead the Fifth.

Bennett told NEWSWEEK that his client had been "a dedicated and loy­al public servant for 31 years" and "has done nothing wrong." But he warned that Rodriguez may refuse to cooperate with investigators if he concludes that the probes are a "witch hunt." "I don’t want him to become a scapegoat."

In case you missed it, Bennett uses the same phrase Monica Goodling’s lawyer, John Dowd, used, "witch hunts," just before he snookered Congress into offering her immunity for a bunch of stuff that Congress already had evidence she was doing. As a reminder, Monica said almost nothing that incriminated Rove or Harriet and only sort of incriminated AGAG. But she managed to get herself immunity for "crossing the line" and politicizing DOJ’s hiring practices. Bennett’s use of precisely same language as Monica’s lawyer may be no accident.

Well, surprise, surprise! Bennett just told Congress he wants Rodriguez to receive immunity before he’ll testify before Congress (h/t maryo2).

Attorneys for Jose Rodriguez told Congress that the former CIA official won’t testify about the destruction of CIA videotapes without a promise of immunity, a person close to the tapes inquiry said Wednesday.

[snip]

Defense attorney Robert Bennett told lawmakers, however, that he would not let Rodriguez testify because of the criminal investigation into the case. Without a promise of immunity, anything Rodriguez said at the hearing could be used against him in court.

Of course, Bennett’s excuse has changed. Rather than use the tired excuse Monica Goodling used–she was the "victim" of a witchhunt–Bennett is using the even more tired Iran-Contra era excuse that, um, maybe Congress can get his client out of all criminal liability if Bennett pulls a fast one … ? But honest, Bennett’s not worried about any real criminal liability, nosiree.

Meanwhile, Judge Mark Kennedy has decided he trusts DOJ a lot more than Judge Mark Wolf does, and he doesn’t see the need to conduct an inquiry into why the CIA was destroying tapes that might have been relevant to cases before him.

U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. said in a three-page ruling in Washington that a group of inmates being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "offer nothing to support their assertion that a judicial inquiry" is necessary into the tape destruction. He said neither of the detainees whose interrogations were taped and later destroyed has an apparent connection to the prisoners who were demanding the review.

Kennedy also wrote that he expects the Justice Department "will follow the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this court."

So, let’s see. No Rodriguez testimony before Congress (hopefully, that is … did you know that Non CIA Rat is almost an anagram for Iran-Contra?), no Kennedy inquiry into the terror tapes. That DOJ investigation into the torture tapes is looking like a pretty good way to bury any discussion of the torture tapes for a good little while, isn’t it? Maybe even long enough for Bush to start pardoning people wildly in about a year, huh?

image_print
60 replies
  1. MadDog says:

    The timeline on the DOJ “investigation” is what, 6 or more months?

    And then since it is also:

    1. Being handled by John “Tight-lips” Durham as the US Attorney.
    2. Being handled via Grand Jury (if necessary) and GJ Secrecy rules apply.
    3. Deals with “National Security”, so is automatically hush-hush.

    What is the likelyhood that this disappears entirely from the MSM’s radar screen? And you’re choices are:

    a. Gone.
    b. Buried.
    c. Finally shows up in a FOIA response in the year 2048.

  2. Loo Hoo. says:

    So could congress offer immunity to someone else who has the goods? I don’t get this. I am blown away by the depths of the corruption.

    Also, why doesn’t Waxman/Conyers/Leahy ask for emails that the WH is claiming are lost from any insider. Aren’t there some patriots in government who would give them up?

    • bmaz says:

      Well, I’m so poor that I can barely pay attention today; but if the price is right, I am willing to take that “r” off your hands. I’m thinking I can shine it up and sell it for a profit to Phred to round out her “Arrr” in the last thread.

      • phred says:

        Tell you what, I’ll take that r and if you have a spare g handy, I’ll round up another r from somewhere and put together a nice little growl to properly reflect my ill temper this evening. Some days I utterly despair for that quirky old notion called “rule of law”. Grr…

      • emptywheel says:

        If we gave that G to MadDog, he might be able to re-anagram Iran Contra into Reagan somehow–though I guess you’d have to spell it kind of funny.

    • MadDog says:

      Various anagrams that might fit:

      Carrion Ant
      A Rancor Nit
      Narc Ration
      A Narc Intro
      Arrant Con I
      Acorn Ran It
      Rancor Ant I
      Actor Ran In (my fav since it clearly speaks to Ronald “Zap” Reagan)
      Rain Rat Con
      Ran Rat Icon
      A Narc In Rot

      • prostratedragon says:

        I extracted these before MadDog went to town with CIA Iran-Contra.

        Arrant Icon to go with Actor Ran In?

        Acorn Train for all our busy little grafting squirrels? (That one works pretty well for the land-grabbing vultures and others awaiting the pop of mortgage blister, to commit a major mixed-metaphor infraction.)

        That anagrams site is a great tool.

  3. MadDog says:

    But if you insist on CIA Iran Contra, then these anagrams could work:

    A Narcotic Rain
    Ocarina Narc It
    Cocain Rain Art
    Cocain Rain Rat
    Cocain Air Rant
    Raincoat Narc I
    Arctic Air Anon (the CIA’s old airline?)
    Coca Rain Train
    Action Narc Air (the CIA’s new airline?)
    A Narcotic Ran I
    A Carrion Act In
    A Cairn Can Riot
    A Cairn Rat Icon
    A Narc Air Tonic
    A Narc Rat Ionic
    Cocain Ran Rat I
    Coca Rain Ran It
    Coca Rain Rant I
    Coca Rain Rat In
    Coca Air Rat Inn
    Ciao Narc Ran It
    Ciao Narc Rant I
    Ciao Car Rat Inn
    Narc Taco Rain I
    Narc Taco Air In
    Taco Car Air Inn
    A Circa Ran It No
    A Circa Ran It On
    A Circa Rant I On
    A Narc Actor I In
    A Narc Car I Into
    A Narc Air Con It

    • MadDog says:

      Chris has done a masterful and damning job of indicting our Village Elders. And so did Arthur Silber who Chris references.

      And neither are wrong.

  4. LS says:

    I vote for:

    Machine Temp
    Emphatic Men
    Pemmican The
    A Pitchmen Em
    A Pitchmen Me
    Ace Hemp Mint
    Peace Hmm Nit
    Peace Hmm Tin
    Peach Em Mint
    Peach Me Mint
    Cheap Em Mint
    Cheap Me Mint
    Cheat Men Imp
    Teach Men Imp
    Mace Hem Pint
    Mace Hemp Nit
    Mace Hemp Tin
    Mace Them Nip
    Mace Them Pin
    Mace Then Imp
    Mace Hep Mint
    Mace Men Pith
    Mace Pent Him
    Came Hem Pint
    Came Hemp Nit
    Came Hemp Tin
    Came Them Nip
    Came Them Pin
    Came Then Imp
    Came Hep Mint
    Came Men Pith
    Came Pent Him
    Acme Hem Pint
    Acme Hemp Nit
    Acme Hemp Tin
    Acme Them Nip
    Acme Them Pin
    Acme Then Imp
    Acme Hep Mint
    Acme Men Pith
    Acme Pent Him
    Encamp Hem Ti
    Encamp Hem It
    Encamp Them I
    Encamp The Mi
    Encamp Em Hit
    Encamp Me Hit
    Encamp Met Hi
    Acne Them Imp
    Acne Temp Him
    Cane Them Imp
    Cane Temp Him
    Pecan Them Mi
    Pecan Met Him
    Enact Hem Imp
    Enact Hemp Mi
    Cape Hem Mint
    Pace Hem Mint
    Chain Em Temp
    Chain Me Temp
    China Em Temp
    China Me Temp
    Mach Mete Nip
    Mach Mete Pin
    Mach Teem Nip
    Mach Teem Pin
    Mach Meet Nip
    Mach Meet Pin

  5. LS says:

    And:

    Senator
    A Toners
    A Tenors
    Nae Tors
    Nae Sort
    Nae Rots
    Earn Sot
    Near Sot
    Saner To
    Snare To
    Earns To
    Nears To
    Sane Tor
    Sane Rot
    Antes Or
    Are Snot
    Are Tons
    Ear Snot
    Ear Tons
    Era Snot
    Era Tons
    Ears Not
    Ears Ton
    Ares Not
    Ares Ton
    Sera Not
    Sera Ton
    Sear Not
    Sear Ton
    Eras Not
    Eras Ton
    Stare No
    Stare On
    Tares No
    Tares On
    Aster No
    Aster On
    Tears No

  6. prostratedragon says:

    Wow, Senator is pretty rough, eh? Notice how [CIA] Iran-Contra keeps giving up “narc,” coca, etc?

  7. watercarrier4diogenes says:

    Just to add another tank of gas to the Sibel Edmonds-Chris Floyd bonfire, our friends at Diebold are actually getting noticed by someone in the MSM, Bob Koehler of the Tribune syndicate. Not nearly enough someones, admittedly, but it’s a start. There needs to be a ‘Deep Throat’ in each of dozens of places anymore, just to keep track of all the stuff that could/should/must be out’ed.

    • PetePierce says:

      I’m hyperventilatin’ again. Sibel is real. But that’s another one that’s been buried. My real question on Sibel is why DOJ didn’t blow her away like Joe Pecci in the Godfather. I seriously don’t know why Bush didn’t kill her–she had the real info on Little Goat Reader’s stirling performance as well as the FBI and Condi’s.

      BTW–isn’t it a fact that 99% if not 100% of the subtantive info on Sibel Edmonds was covered up by a Bush D.C. Circuit upholding State Secrets and a Bush Supreme Court who couldn’t muster the cajohnes to grant cert. to ACLU.

  8. bmaz says:

    I would also like to point out that I did not set off to turn this thread into another slapstick routine, I was only responding to EW @5. The Wackiest Ships in the Iranian Navy Thread … well, that couldn’t be helped.

    • MadDog says:

      The accused pleads ignorance, but that is no defense. Guilty as charged! And the sentence is to perform stand-up as a community service. In clown shoes.

  9. merkwurdiglieber says:

    OT, but Bloomberg states he will run if the Democrats nominate someone
    “divisive”, they must nominate someone nonpartisan or else…

    • MadDog says:

      OT, but Bloomberg states he will run if the Democrats nominate someone “divisive”, they must nominate someone nonpartisan or else…

      But if the Repugs nominate a divisive candidate (foregone conclusion?), then that is Ok?

      Seems that Bloomberg will run to “attempt” to prevent a Democratic someone who’ll make the Repugs pay. Feck that bastard and the elephant he rode in on.

      • bmaz says:

        Because, you know, this business model has historically worked out so well for third party candidates and the country as a whole. Lieberman as Veep would round out a dream team that we would all be compelled to follow; so as not to be divisive and all in regard to the American electoral process. Is it just me, or is much of the news today some truly sublime black comedy?

        • merkwurdiglieber says:

          The cure is an electoral tsunami that swamps the wedge they hope to
          drive into the election. Call and raise.

      • merkwurdiglieber says:

        I guess that bunch of Quislings that met at OU Norman were serious
        after all. They seem to demand stipulating who the Democratic Party
        must nominate. Cheeky bastards.

        • MadDog says:

          I guess that bunch of Quislings that met at OU Norman were serious after all. They seem to demand stipulating who the Democratic Party
          must nominate. Cheeky bastards.

          They believe they are saving the Repugs…ahmmm…the Republic.

          • merkwurdiglieber says:

            The video is up at Cspan, has a night of the living dead surreal aspect.
            Blatant attempt to salvage their Republican investment.

  10. Veritas78 says:

    The world quakes at what Michael Bloomberg will do if we don’t obey him. 5′4″ unmarried guys with squeaky voices do not get elected President. It may be unfair, but they don’t.

    As for Rodriguez, didn’t he work for us? As in “We the People?” Didn’t he collect a paycheck for 31 years that we paid for, and isn’t he enjoying our pension? Yet he won’t tell us what he did on our behalf?

    Congress should just cut the funding for the whole damn mess. Convince me that we’re better with a CIA than without.

    • MadDog says:

      As for Rodriguez, didn’t he work for us? As in “We the People?” Didn’t he collect a paycheck for 31 years that we paid for, and isn’t he enjoying our pension? Yet he won’t tell us what he did on our behalf?

      An interesting tidbit is that I believe Rodriguez is still an “official” CIA (and there US Government) employee.

      Evidently the CIA has a “getting ready for civilian life” outplacement process whereby a retiring CIA employee spends time, on official payroll, getting debriefed and preparing for civilian life.

      In that case, I would argue that as a government employee, one cannot exercise one’s 5th Amendment right to remain silent before Congress.

      I know that bmaz has taken me to task on this very point previously (nicely, I must admit *g*), but I’m still insistent on this crucial contract that a Government employee must be answerable to the people in the form of our representatives.

      I believe that a Government employee has 2 choices:

      1. Speak honestly and truthfully before Congress, or
      2. Resign from Goverment employment and plead the 5th Amendment.

      It should be one or the other. If you take our money, then you owe us the truth.

      I believe that there has been some sense of this with folks like Monica Goodling (and others before her).

      I’m guessing this is not “settled law”, but it ought to be!

      • PetePierce says:

        I believe that a Government employee has 2 choices:

        1. Speak honestly and truthfully before Congress, or
        2. Resign from Goverment employment and plead the 5th Amendment.

        I admire your idealism but there is a 3rd option and that one is chosen whenever a House or Senate committee investigates, or the DOJ for that matter when you’re CIA or DOJ. That option is to

        3) Tell them to blow the f**k off. That’s what you’re seeing here.

        Sylvester Reyes’ Committee–the Border Collie? Fagehdaboudit.

        Also I’ve uncovered a very crucial tidbit that’s on point–Mukasey translated into Farsi means literally “no special counsel–ever–ya kiddin’ me.”

    • emptywheel says:

      5′4″? I didn’t know that. By golly, he towers over even Scooter Libby, all of 5′5″, I’m sure.

      That said, DC is the perfect place for Bloomberg. It’s a short man’s haven.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Judge Kennedy’s credulousness about the DOJ seems unsupportable. For all practical purposes, which he is too experienced not to appreciate, it will delay accountability and possibly immunize against it.

    We do not need another Gerald Ford-style whitewash that our “leaders” tell us is “good for the country”. We need a thorough spring cleaning, including taking the carpets out back for a lengthy session with the long-handled broom.

  12. PetePierce says:

    Congress has caused another well, clusterf**k–good word. EW got me spending two hours geting more and more confuseder trying to figure out what the hell were those people in Michigan thinking when they set up their primary,and after trying I remembered I really like the word clusterfuck to describe that and this situation.

    Jeebus H. Jeebus. Because not all of us know the inside baseball on what Michigan Democrats were thinking there, and to start from scratch takes me a lot of time.

    I know Michigan defied the DNC, and the Republebots defied RNC. The Clintonistas wanted a primary and they got it. It’s looking a little dim for Edwards there I think, but I’m not making predictions until Super Tue is over.

    Something ’bout Levin wanted some spotlight for Michigan real bad and he wanted to be more firster than most, and Obama has honored the DNC by withdrawing, and that’ll probably haunt him, because the DNC at election time… well? I think Obama could have done well there and now I don’t understand any of Michigan. So I don’t have a clue, but I’ll work on it a little more tomorrow.

    All of the twists and turns will be fun, but in the end the tape investigation will get nowhere. And Sylvester Reyes, the hick on the HIC, the former border agent who has no real legal experience other than bordering, which Collies also do, is hardly a match for Bennett.

    The only substantive thing that’s going to come of this investigation is that Cheney, Addington, Gillespie and Fielding will open some bottles of whatever they drink and have a good male-bonding “fucking the Congress once again” laugh. Maybe Bennett will be their drinking too–who knows.

    Tennet has lawyered up too.

    Judge Wolfe and Judge Henry Kennedy (former DOJster) are achieving the same result. Nada is coming from either order that progresses this country or justice.

    I did find something tangential to smile about though. Judge Wolfe’s ratings–I mean 99% of the time the ratings from anyone– bar society or whomever are bland and down the middle or as favorable as a grandma on high school graduation day. But not ole Mark’s:


    Markey the Wolfe Wolfe Bad Boy to Some

    How’s that Mukasey nomination in SJC looking about now? Ole Luckie Chuckie Schumer, and Di Ferragamo Fein Twitstein voted for him along with the Republebots 11-8–your Congress at work. If they had a brain, they could have and should have blocked him, and held out for someone decent. After the shitstorm Gonzales and everyone else created in the Civil and Criminal Divisions of DOJ, what the hell difference would a couple months have made?

    I believe that’s the way government is supposed to work, when there is a 10-9 Majority in Senate Judiciary. But it doesn’t work at all anymore does it? Deals made? I dunno ’bout them. But what I do know is everything’s coming up Bush Administration thumbs up that happens these days–doesn’t matter what the situation or agency is. Talk about Teflon.

    Remember things like this?

    Feinstein and Schumer said Mukasey is better than having an unconfirmed “caretaker” leading the Justice Department. “To accept such an unaccountable caretaker, I believe, would be to surrender the department to the extreme ideology of Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington, without check,” Schumer said

    So a lot of time and money will be wasted and more pixie dust.

    But cheerup–Craig filed his appellate brief in Minnesota–that seems to entertain some people. I smile more at the Senate ignoring Vitter and his hookers–because they honor the Fraternal Order of Hookers code.

    And I heard the FBI is looking into the DJ Cooper case after 36 years. So they’re a little slow–they’re spending your tax dollars to entertain you–that’s what DOJ and FBI are there for. The writers and producters of “Prison Break” got further in the DJ Cooper case than they FBI has or will.

  13. MadDog says:

    From Scotusblog:

    In a footnote, the judge refused to open a broad inquiry into whether the government, in destroying these and possibly other videotapes, had violated a more general obligation to preserve all evidence. The detainees’ lawyers had not raised that issue in their plea now before him, Judge Kennedy wrote, so he would not consider it.

    Sounds like the Judge is not only nitpicking, but covering his eyes so he doesn’t see the bad things happening right in front of him.

    “To judge not” appears to be his idea of a virtue.

    • PetePierce says:

      Ya think? Remember that 98% of appellate judges are from DOJ–DOJ is the Sylvio Dante agency. They run interference for the Godfather.

    • bmaz says:

      If the record is cut and dried as that quote from Judge Kennedy concludes; I don’t have a problem with his ruling assuming he did not arbitrarily or unreasonably deny a good faith attempt to amend the pleadings by the plaintiff. That is how courts work; so be it. The question is, was the case really in that posture, or did the court have to “creatively” view the record to bootstrap such a conclusion?

      • PetePierce says:

        If the record is cut and dried as that quote from Judge Kennedy concludes; I don’t have a problem with his ruling assuming he did not arbitrarily or unreasonably deny a good faith attempt to amend the pleadings by the plaintiff. That is how courts work; so be it. The question is, was the case really in that posture, or did the court have to “creatively” view the record to bootstrap such a conclusion?

        I see his ruling as fox/hencoop city bmaz.

        Short of a special counsel, I see this going nowhere.

        I have zero confidence that Mukasey DOJ will do a credible investigation. In a year people will understand how bad he is, and what a broad base of situations he has covered up and failed to execute on.

  14. bmaz says:

    So what exactly would Michael Bloomberg do differently as President of the United States than Clinton or Obama? I am having a very hard time picturing much. Is he concerned that trial lawyer Edwards will be elected and be “ant-Business”? I don’t understand the justification of this concern candidacy.

      • bmaz says:

        Well, ok, but are you sure that Hillary and/or Obama really mean to end it either? They often say that, but still waffle pretty well on the margins to where I have no idea how they will really act on the war. Either one will be better than Bush, but I don’t think we know exactly how much better. That is a category that i think Bloomberg is generally in as well. I would agree that there may be a reason to place Bloomberg a little more trending to the hawkish side than the other two, but I haven’t seen, so far, a giant difference in what you could predict any of them would actually do (as opposed to campaign rhetoric). And that was my point; rightly or wrongly.

  15. PetePierce says:

    Sorry for the disrespect–I won’t mispell Tenant’s name again. It’s funny. If you use The Google, as my President calls it –the hits are evenly distributed spelling his name 3 ways. Maybe that’s a CIA deep cover thing.

  16. radiofreewill says:

    One of the Alarming features of the Unitary Executive seems to be that Bush’s Policies cannot be reviewed by Congress for their propiety, effectiveness or even legality.

    Which is Crazy. So, for instance – Torture is heinous, ineffective and against the Law. And yet:

    Torture – as Policy – as Bush’s Policy – is already out in the Open.

    It’s injurious to the Rule of Law, imvho, to ’sweep’ Public Review of the Policy into a Secrecy Closet, while Bush’s Henchpeople refuse to testify unless they get Immunity for having Carried out the Policy – without regard for the Law.

    This is the very mechanism behind the Monica Pig-in-a-Poke Immunity Play that EW points out: Immunize the Henchpeople for their Criminal Actions in Carrying-out Bush’s Illegal Policies, in order to avoid a “witch hunt” for Breakers of the Rule of Law!

    Torture, Wiretapping, Politicizing the fucking Department of Justice, Non-compliance with Record Keeping, Destroying Evidence – The Henchpeople Never Pay, and Bush’s Policies are Never Reviewed Publicly.

    Where’s the Justice?

    Bush hasn’t quite figured out how to ‘disappear’ ordinary, innocent Civilians into Black Sites, yet, but he’s Perfected ‘disappearing’ his Henchpeople from Legal and Judicial Accountability – while he, himself, can’t even be Questioned, at all.

    What else are We to conclude Except that there are Two Parts to Our Government. One is Public, all Kabuki, and has Law for the Little People. The other is Secret, frequently Evil, and Lawless.

    • TLinGA says:

      Bush hasn’t quite figured out how to ‘disappear’ ordinary, innocent Civilians into Black Sites,

      Yes he has. Under the Military Commissions Act, he can designate anyone, even US citizens as an “unlawful enemy combatant” on his say so alone, and drop them into a military brig rathole.

      • radiofreewill says:

        Hi, TLinGA! I haven’t stayed current on the MCA and the status of Habeus – I find the Sheer Volume of BushCo Criminality makes it hard to keep up, like those plate-spinning-on-sticks acts on Ed Sullivan – at some point they can’t catch the plates, and spin them back on the sticks, as fast as they’re falling off…and on this one, I’m standing in a pile of cheap porcelin.

        Is it really down to Chimpy just pushing the Easy Button – and *Poof!* – we’re vacationing in the Tropics at Gitmo?

        • TLinGA says:

          Is it really down to Chimpy just pushing the Easy Button – and *Poof!* – we’re vacationing in the Tropics at Gitmo?

          Hi, radio. Unfortunately, it is just that simple. The following is a portion of section 948a. of the Act (my emphasis):

          (1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means–

          `(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

          `(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

          So to paraphrase, an “unlawful enemy combatant” is a person who is determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant, point and click. Even without a generous interpretation of the bill by the DoJ, it would not be difficult to imagine that BushCo could (and would) grant a permanent vacation to anyone that becomes an inconvenience. Am I the only person who is spooked by the use of the term “military tribunal” as one of the groups that can make this determination?

          The laws are in place, all we need now is another reason for a state of emergency to be declared and “it’s done”.

  17. PetePierce says:

    Bush hasn’t quite figured out how to ‘disappear’ ordinary, innocent Civilians into Black Sites, yet, but he’s Perfected ‘disappearing’ his Henchpeople from Legal and Judicial Accountability – while he, himself, can’t even be Questioned, at all.

    What else are We to conclude Except that there are Two Parts to Our Government. One is Public, all Kabuki, and has Law for the Little People. The other is Secret, frequently Evil, and Lawless.

    Absolutely. That’s the way DOJ has worked for years and years, but it’s gotten much worse in the last six. They’ll crush the little guy, but take a shitload of time considering prosecuting someone with the means and methods to mount a huge defense.

  18. bmaz says:

    Holy crap, in addition to not wanting us to know about the torture tapes, I’ll bet they don’t want us to know about Blackwater dropping CS nerve gas on Iraqis. Did Condi Rice and Richard Griffin authorize this too? If not, then who did? Who authorized Blackwater to even possess CS nerve gas? Who gave/sold it to them? This is absolutely stunning.

    • bmaz says:

      Alright, I must have suffered a synapse collapse or something. As I was dozing off to sleep, I suddenly realized I confused CS gas (bad stuff) with VX gas (really bad stuff). This is still a little reprehensible by Blackwater, but not as bad as I was thinking.

  19. bmaz says:

    Man, what a day. The wheels are coming off of the Bushmobile at all four corners.

    Don’t Cry For Ashcroftina. Our former AG has been well compensated for keeping a lid on the FISA illegalities surrounding the infamous hospital scene and coming back into the fold when the news broke and the investigations started. Ashcroft was given a secret, no bid contract for 28-52 million dollars to monitor a freaking court ordered settlement agreement. Yowzer; good work if you can get it I guess….

Comments are closed.