Pre-Emptive Strike on OPR Report: NYT Misrepresents Comey Emails, Claims He Approved Torture

Update: Read the Comey emails. The NYT has–IMO–grossly misrepresented the emails. Not only have they printed a story with their source’s spin completely untouched, but they have ignored the real news in these emails.

The NYT has been leaked a bunch of the emails that will show up in the Office of Public Responsibility report on John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury’s role in approving torture. (h/t Jason Leopold) Their story on the emails appears to be a pre-emptive (and somewhat misleading) strike on the OPR report due out shortly.

The most news-worthy of these appears to be Jim Comey, agreeing that the May 10, 2005 opinion authorizing waterboarding was “ready to go.”

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

That opinion, giving the green light for all 13 C.I.A. methods, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times.

While signing off on the techniques, Mr. Comey in his e-mail provided a firsthand account of how he tried unsuccessfully to discourage use of the practices. He made a last-ditch effort to derail the interrogation program, urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to argue at a White House meeting in May 2005 that it was “wrong.”

“In stark terms I explained to him what this would look like some day and what it would mean for the president and the government,” Mr. Comey wrote in a May 31, 2005, e-mail message to his chief of staff, Chuck Rosenberg. He feared that a case could be made “that some of this stuff was simply awful.”

Now, I say this is a misleading attempt to pre-empt the OPR report.

I say it’s misleading not because I’m trying defend Comey for “going along with” this memo. But because the story buries the fact that Comey still did oppose the May 30, 2005 May 10 techniques memo (which raises the question of why these approvals came in three different memos).

His objections focused on a second legal opinion that authorized combinations of the methods. He expressed “grave reservations” and asked for a week to revise the memorandum, warning Mr. Gonzales that “it would come back to haunt him and the department,” Mr. Comey said in a 2005 e-mail to Mr. Rosenberg.

Thus, the story obscures whether these memos address the torture statute, or compliance with CAT more generally, and oversells the terms of the debate.

Furthermore, this story presents as “news” stuff that we already knew–such as that Dan Levin signed off on waterboarding in August 2004.

Mr. Levin, now in private practice, won public praise with a 2004 memo that opened by declaring “torture is abhorrent.” But he also wrote a letter to the C.I.A that specifically approved waterboarding in August 2004, and he drafted much of Mr. Bradbury’s lengthy May 2005 opinion authorizing the 13 methods.

We’ve known that Levin signed off on waterboarding in August 2004 for some time, not least from the SSCI narrative on torture. (It would be truly news if the NYT explained precisely why–aside from the detainee’s obesity–CIA didn’t use that approval to waterboard Hassan Ghul, as they were asking to do.) And this story includes no discussion of whether the “CIA’s proposed limitations, conditions and safeguards” included in Levin’s approval made waterboarding a lot less interesting for the interrogators.

The story also gives new details about Jack Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the Bybee One memo.

In addition, in a previously undisclosed letter to the agency, Mr. Goldsmith put a temporary halt to waterboarding. But he left intact a secret companion memo from 2002 that actually authorized the harsh methods, leaving the C.I.A. free to use all its methods except waterboarding, including wall-slamming, face-slapping, stress positions and more.

But we knew from the SASC report that Bybee Two was in the short stack that Goldsmith found problematic, and we’ve known (obviously) that Bybee Two was never withdrawn.

In other words, my gripe with this is not that the NYT has published this as a story–but they appear to have published it as the story the leakers wanted, rather than to examine the questions even these damning emails raise. For example, what does it mean that Dick Cheney had pushed so hard for the May 30 May 10, 2005 techniques memo that Gonzales wouldn’t even allow Comey a week to make the memo less than embarrassing?

Mr. Gonzales told him that he was “under great pressure” from Vice President Dick Cheney to complete both memos and that President George W. Bush had asked about the memorandums, Mr. Comey recounted in one of the 2005 e-mail messages.

And what was the big rush for, anyway?

And what does it mean that CIA asked Chertoff to grant immunity in advance?

They had asked Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, to grant interrogators immunity in advance from prosecution for torture. Mr. Chertoff refused, but neither did he warn the agency against the methods it was proposing.

And given the use of such a phrase by others–such as Diane Beaver–why are we so sure that Chertoff didn’t give implicit immunity in advance?

These are interesting new (well, some of them) details, don’t get me wrong. They portray Comey, especially, in a nuanced light (but Mary’s has been trying to make that point for years). But they also raise questions that are totally different than the ones that the NYT–and its source, presumably–would like to raise.

image_print
48 replies
  1. klynn says:

    It think it is important to ask who is leaking this to go after Comey and “what’ might Comey add to challenging this in the public record.

    I think Comey would go public on this finger pointing. Remember, Comey is personally deeply influence by Reinhold Niebuhr which I am confident influenced the lens he viewed US law during wartime.

    • emptywheel says:

      My guess is this is an attempt on Steven Bradbury’s part of rebut the potential conclusion of the OPR that he’s a craven asshole who should lose his JD.

      But that’s just a wildarsed guess.

    • bmaz says:

      Why would he do that? Comey’s ass is not on the line here sufficiently to warrant him stepping forward, and that is the only real time he steps forward. Mr. fucking “grave reservations” nevertheless determined, through some twisted and craven process, that it was all legal. That waterboarding was legal. Comey can go straight to hell.

  2. klynn says:

    EW,

    I agree with your wildarsed guess.

    I thought I read something recently about Comey being a witness in a Grand Jury? Do you know about this? Is it irt the US Atty firings?

  3. JasonLeopold says:

    can I just say that I am in awe of your quick analytical skills? I am. It’s amazing. Thanks for providing your take on this story.

    • klynn says:

      Thanks for the link WO.

      I read the content of those emails very different from the NYT’s interpretation.

  4. emptywheel says:

    I don’t think going after Comey is the point, but rather to make authoring these memos look less bad. Comey’s made out to be a law-abiding guy. So if you can say Mr. Boyscout approved (though he did less than that), then you can claim you’re not so bad for authoring the memo.

    I’m particularly interested in the Levin claim–that he wrote most of the Techniques memo. That’s interesting, bc that memo has so many of the details that damned the whole program. The fact that Levin wrote most, but not all, just raises new questions for me, such as what happened in the interim.

    • bmaz says:

      Agreed. But I went Comey hunting out pure personal gratuitous compulsion to do so. And, you know, the old trope about him “earning it the old fashioned way”.

    • klynn says:

      I do not even get an “approved” out of those emails. I get an, “I tried, voiced my views, I’m going and someone else will carry this opposition through even though it appears the opposition is not able to stop a damn thing.”

  5. Scarecrow says:

    I think this part should be shoved in Baby Cheney’s face:

    By April 2005, the opinions were in final form, and Mr. Comey, who had already set his own resignation for August, concurred in the 46-page opinion affirming the legality of the 13 techniques. But he told Mr. Gonzales that he strongly objected to Mr. Bradbury’s second opinion, allowing multiple techniques to be used in a single interrogation session.

    Mr. Gonzales told him that he was “under great pressure” from Vice President Dick Cheney to complete both memos and that President George W. Bush had asked about the memorandums, Mr. Comey recounted in one of the 2005 e-mail messages.

    Does Ms. Vader, uh, Cheney believe that the appropriate role of the Vice President is to (1) pressure the Justice Department to issue a legal opinion . . . (2) an opinion that would legitimize torture . . . and (3) cover his potential legal jeopardy for the fact that he pushed CIA to torture people?

  6. Scarecrow says:

    And isn’t it obvious that Cheney’s motive was to provide immunity for his crimes, given the fact that, so everyone claims, no one was torturing or waterboarding anyone after 2003?

    Now, if we only had a Justice Department that saw it as their function/responsibility to prosecute felonies.

    • bobash says:

      my thoughts exactly re Cheney and DOJ.

      Also, is there no parental supervision of the NYT reporters covering this story? The inadequacy of their coverage continues to amaze me.

      On this issue the MSM is being so out done by Marcy and other bloggers. It’s really quite embarassing and sad for the tradition of NYT and WaPo and American print journalism. It’s difficult witnessing the medium spiral down the drain. It’s scaring the hell out of me, because FDL and the rest of the blogosphere can’t compete with ratings-driven, Friday-night-wrestling programming on cable when it comes to influencing the vote. Reality is losing to Theatre day after day.

      • emptywheel says:

        Hey, don’t forget that the NYT has James Risen, who was one of the first to report on this. And Joby Warrick, so long as he’s not paired with Paul Kane, has been doing a good job. And Jane Mayer, who is not a blogger, has been doing the best job of all.

        • bobash says:

          Marcy,

          If all one knows of this story is what they hear on cable, they are worse than ignorant. If they ignore TV and read NYT or WaPo, they are are still woefully uninformed on how incredibly twisted Cheney’s operational interpretation of his oath of office was/is and how serious and criminal his abuse of power has been. I started a sabbatical last summer, and now feel guilty for being such a lousy citizen during the Bush administration. Mind you, I was never a fan. But like most Americans I spent too much time at work (non-Washington-related), although I actually did try to stay informed with media other than talk radio and cable shouting matches. I relied on the NYT but failed to see how criminal the Bush administration was. I knew they were a bunch of lying party hacks, but not the criminals I now see them as. Not until I read Danner’s work in TNY Review of Books did I begin to appreciate reality on torture, and only after trying to keep up with your blog and a couple of others have I realized just how Orwellian things are today. The sad truth is the average American working full-time and trying to raise a family hasn’t a clue what’s going on, given what passes for news in the traditional and now ratings-based media. I’ll be more attentive to the names you defend at the Times, but I stand by my conclusion that the NYTimes has failed the nation of late in their ongoing death spiral.

          I keep hoping that Obama is just waiting for the right time–he’s got more political smarts than I can imagine having so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt–giving Feinstein and her committee time to finish their work so Congress is not similarly shamed for malfeasance of historical proportions and so they can save some face. But unless/until Obama greenlights Eric & Co. to prosecute, the press is the only hope we have of getting the truth out to as many Americans as possible, and you happen to be the one leading the parade. Thanks and much appreciation for what you are doing. I really can’t overstate how important I believe your work is in getting the truth out into the public domain. Keep it up.

  7. oldtree says:

    I for one am looking forward to the libel suit Mr. Comey will bring against the NYT. That may take some time, but we can hope that he approaches it the way Dan Rather does. No surrender.

  8. richcpl says:

    This sounds like an important story, but good Christ it’s so poorly written that it’s hard to know what’s being said. Either get an editor or spend more time making your copy coherent so that it has impact.

    • bmaz says:

      Funny, I had no problem whatsoever reading or comprehending the story and the writing. We have been doing this stuff for a long time here, it is hard to follow if you are not up to speed. It is not possible to background everything every time in a blog post. Might I suggest you pay attention and read consistently over a long period and you will understand the full content just fine. Join the effort instead of criticizing it rudely.

      • richcpl says:

        Sorry, but there’s no excuse for poor writing. This is the problem w/ blogs and Internet posts where every clod has an editorial platform.

        • bmaz says:

          Yeah, and I have little tolerance for people that just don’t know their rear end from a hole in the ground so as to be able to follow along. Go figure.

      • richcpl says:

        The other point, by the way, is that if you have to be on the site over a long period of time to follow the story, then the site and the writer are writing into an echo chamber; you’re writing for people who already know exactly what you’re talking about and already agree with you. Isn’t the idea to change minds rather than validate what you already all agree on? I’ve followed the torture stories pretty closely but the tumble of names, dates and minutiae is only meaningful to people steeped in it. The rest of have lives to live and go to alternative sources for fresh information and insights that we can follow. Make the site usable and useful and it’ll have an impact. Otherwise, you’re just jerking off.

        • MadDog says:

          The other point, by the way, is that if you have to be on the site over a long period of time to follow the story, then the site and the writer are writing into an echo chamber;

          Not so at all! You’re making an assumption that says more about you than it does about the folks here. And it tends to make you look foolish and ignorant.

          … Isn’t the idea to change minds rather than validate what you already all agree on?

          Hmmm…I don’t believe that’s a requirement for this or any other blog. Again, you are making an assumption as to what this blog, and blogging in general, is all about. Your assumption again says more about you than it does about anyone else.

          Change minds? Let me get out my copy of the “Blogger Constitution for Dummies”. Nope, don’t see a requirement that one can only blog if one is trying to change minds.

          And further, I can’t find any requirement that one can only blog if one is trying to validate what folks already agree upon.

          Nope, neither show up in my copy of the “Blogger Constitution for Dummies”.

          As a matter of fact, there are no rules, requirements, or oaths of fealty at all in my copy of the “Blogger Constitution for Dummies”.

          As a matter of fact, my copy of the “Blogger Constitution for Dummies” has nothing in it at all. Nope, just a blank page!

          And that’s just what blogging is and should be.

          You want to make some rules for blogging? Make ‘em yourself, and on your own blog!

          …I’ve followed the torture stories pretty closely but the tumble of names, dates and minutiae is only meaningful to people steeped in it. The rest of have lives to live and go to alternative sources for fresh information and insights that we can follow. Make the site usable and useful and it’ll have an impact. Otherwise, you’re just jerking off.

          If you want content-free stories, I’d suggest the Traditional Media like Faux News. They hardly ever bother you with names, dates and other minutiae.

          As to your suggestion to “make the site usable and useful”, it is. That it doesn’t apparently consist of the watered-down pablum you desire, again says more about you than it does about this place.

          I guess the polite way to put it is if you can’t stand the heat, then best stay out of the kitchen!

          • richcpl says:

            Wow. How fresh and original–”If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Nothing more exciting than a cliche. Or flogging to death an unfunny joke like “The Blogger’s Constitution” or “Blogging for Dummies.” That’s a real sharp wit. You miss the whole point of media communications.

            • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

              Seems like you’d be more welcome and have a better time if you could drop the antagonistic tone.

              MadDogs is some kind of a wizard when it comes to locating obscure documents. Ditto several others on this thread. Personally, I find him witty as hell.

              If you’re honestly interested in what EW has to reveal and explain, why not take a deep breath, then carry on when you’re in a more cheerful mood?
              I don’t think he’ll hold a grudge.
              I hope that you don’t either.

        • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

          I’m going to use one bit to highlight what may be a source of confusion; a bit long, but one way of thinking about why “persistence” is part of the fun or reading EW or FDL. Here’s a bit that may cause problems for new readers, and even an ‘old timer’ like myself:

          Thus, the story obscures whether these memos address the torture statute, or compliance with CAT more generally, and oversells the terms of the debate.

          Furthermore, this story presents as “news” stuff that we already knew–

          Now, what I find invaluable about EW is that she points these things out:
          1. The NYT story obscures whether ‘these memos’ address the torture statute
          2. The NYT obscures whether the memos address compliance with CAT more generally
          3. The NYT oversells the terms of the debate
          4. The story offers info as if it is ‘news’, when in fact the info has already been made available.

          You can scour the web without finding an analysis this powerful, or this important.
          Frankly, I had to read the post twice to pick out this key section, and it prompts the following questions in my own mind:
          – And I’m searching my mind for the meaning of ‘CAT’.
          – Also searching for ‘WHICH memos’? The Bybee Memos, I presume, but not 100% certain that I’m correct.
          – I can’t synthesize ‘the terms of the debate’ off the top of my head, so can’t judge whether the NYT oversells those terms (at least, not going to figure it out on a Saturday evening).

          Nevertheless, if I hadn’t read this post, it wouldn’t have jogged me to consider these questions. And they’re worth asking, because someone — we can’t be completely certain who — has ‘played’ the NYT in order to deaden the impact of the OLC report. And that fact is very, very big news.

          It’s the kind of news that, frankly, the NYT ought to have on Page 1.
          Instead, it falls to EW to pick up the pieces, clean them, polish them, and sort them out.

          I’m willing to cut richcpl more slack on a negative comment, b/c I can see – from a ‘reading research perspective‘ some of what I think this person points out:
          (1) the information in these posts is complex
          (2) the posts assume a fair amount of prior knowledge
          (3) reading the posts make a fair number of cognitive demands on the reader.

          Nevertheless, criticizing the post’s style, or complexity, is kind of like blaming Homer because he said more than: “Achilles, Hector, somebody dead.” Despite the fact that we have two names and a dead body, it’s not all that interesting, nor meaningful.

          A couple thousand years ago, it seems that people — many of them illiterate — would show up night, after night, after night in order to hear a story about the danger of implacable resentment and wrath of a character called ‘Achilles’ and the utter destruction that resulted from his refusal to be reasonable.

          But the story would be less informative, and less satisfying, if condensed to a one-hour biopic (and if you don’t believe me, rent “Troy”, but prepare to be bored and restless).

          Similarly, Tolstoy didn’t write: “War, Peace: Pierre Bezukhov gets fortune, marries badly, meets Natasha, marries well; somewhere in there, cold in Moscow and someone got scared at Borodino.” Again, all true, but not particularly interesting. You could have the world’s finest copy editor refine it, but still — not all that interesting, because there’s no sense of things playing out over time, no sense of changing motives, no sense of people gaining things or losing them; no accumulated wisdom.

          Just last night, I was talking with friends who were laughing about their multiyear ‘addiction’ to “Desperate Housewives”, which they’ve watched over several seasons. Part of what they like about it is the way that they’ve seen it play out over time.

          What has happened in the US (and globally) is extremely complex. It requires time to follow it, absorb pieces of it, exchange information about it, refine one’s understanding. This has always been true of complex narratives. That’s part of their allure, and part of their appeal.

          At @21 you state:

          Nuance is important and interesting, but the bottom line is what matters.

          I’m not at all clear what you mean by ‘the bottom line’. I also disagree that it is ‘more important’ than the nuance.

          The nuance is critical.
          The ‘bottom line’ as I see it is: NYT got played. As a result, they’re allowing themselves to be ‘played’ by someone(s) who are scared shitless about the OLC report. Oh, and BTW, the upshot is that Comey looks bad.

          That seems like a pretty huge ‘bottom line’, particularly when you consider the implications of what may be in that OLC report, the potential implications for people’s careers, and the implications for the way that the US is viewed from abroad.

          I personally don’t feel compelled to castigate Homer for having developed his long, complex narrative. In order to distill the necessary lessons about ‘what it means to be human’ and how to live wisely, he had to be persistent. He had to tell a big, big story — one chapter at a time, one episode an evening.

          I also don’t feel compelled to shit on Tolstoy for showing me that people change over time; that those who don’t can be trapped in misery, that people who make imprudent, selfish choices live unhappily. Not something that can really be conveyed in two chapters readable in 20 minutes.

          Some things in life take time.
          Important things worth knowing — at least in my experience — often require persistence. They require revising what you thought you knew, updating what you know with more surprising details.

          We all make choices.
          No one asked you to come here; no one asked me.

          But if you fail to grasp the significance of following over time, you’re really missing a huge aspect of the richness of what goes on at FDL and EW.

          It’s no more complicated that the stories that humans have told since at least the Neolithic Era. But like all really compelling stories, it requires some sustained attention over time.

          Even “Desperate Housewives” knows that much.

          • MadDog says:

            Mighty fine, really might fine commentary ROTL!

            Your surgery/therapy on richcpl was insightful, with real depth and a deft touch! I’m even betting the patient survives. *g*

            And though I’ve never had a hankering for reading Tolstoy (was that because of his War and Peace as boredom-personified reputation in faux intelligentsia circles?), I did fall in love with reading Dostoyevsky.

            Same thing probably. Funny the stuff that catches our eye.

        • Leen says:

          When Olbermann, Rachel, Ed (i also believe Matthews team comes here periodically) are taping into what EW, Bmaz, Jane, WO and others are researching, discussing, digging deep into here you know the peasants are getting access to the truth digging. Counter balancing some of the spin

          Hell I can barely hold onto the amounts of well researched info coming out of this place. Sure was not getting it in the MSM so here we are. New folks (I keep sending folks from the Ohio University volleyball team (18-22), writers, artist, to Professors here at O.U. to FDL daily) coming here everyday because of what one can learn and discuss here. They even tolerate basic questions and challenges based on peasants points of view, basic knowledge and experience.

          richcpl
          “Isn’t the idea to change minds rather than validate what you all ready agree on”

          You obviously do not spend much time here. From my perspective the “idea” here is to base our knowledge of what our government is doing on “facts” not spin. The crew here at FDL seem committed to the “facts”. The discussions, debates, information gathering based on a desire and belief in the rule of law, international agreements etc is astounding here.

          You may have better things to do (golf, go to the mall, put your pedal to the metal in some fashion) but I remember one of our founding folks telling us that the job of U.S. citizens was to stay ‘vigilant”. This blog neighborhood helps us do just that.

        • PJBurke says:

          “…if you have to be on the site over a long period of time to follow the story, then the site and the writer are writing into an echo chamber…”

          This is an advanced conversation. Marcy’s work is analogous to watching Roberto Clemente field long line drives on the warning track and then pegging the hapless runner at third. Every time. It may be “inside baseball,” but that makes it not an echo chamber but actually the antithesis of it. New revelations destroy echos; Marcy has earned a reputation for producing new revelations and demolishing echo sources (and chambers)… those hapless runners trying for third on Marcy’s cannon-arm.

          But then here you come, bellyaching that you don’t understand what the long wooden clubs are for. You don’t understand what the funny-looking, oversized leather hand-coverings do.

          As another poster has pointed out: your bellyaching says much more about you than about this site.

          To reiterate and extend: this is an advanced conversation on a highly technical and esoteric subject, the understanding of which requires that one take the time to read oneself in, and bring oneself up to speed. The necessary preliminary chapters are easily available.

          Your choice is to whether to continue the disruption with your bellyaching, or to do the necessary hard work of bringing yourself into — and up to — the conversation.

          • Rayne says:

            Beautifully said, thanks for that. Obviously the visitor in question is not as up to speed as they think they are on the topic of torture, or they’d have some respect for the work this blog does and the caliber of regular readers-contributors here in thread.

            This is not a site for those who cannot grok realpolitik; it will not be an end-all-be-all for every reader, let alone those with solid political cred and wonky background. But this is the problem with American journalism and the state of our democracy as well; far too many people have not the patience, intellect, fortitude to stay with the trudging grind that is real journalism. The slow grind of stories which became the Watergate scandal is no longer the bread-and-butter of most news outlets simply because their constituents want bread-and-circuses infotainment instead. What a pity; we end up with the commercial news we deserve if we don’t demand and commit to more and better, including the weedy research required of real journalism.

            [Edit: by the way, I think richcpl has some ’splainin’ of his own to do instead of bashing somebody with deeper academic cred than he has. How is it that the financial journalism of this country blew the financial crisis? By dumbing down the content of their work and following conventional wisdom ad nauseum, perhaps? He owns it and ought to be looking more closely at his own work and consider whether deeper, introspective work might have served the public.]

            • PJBurke says:

              Heya, Rayne… thankyou for your compliments. The compliment “beautifully said” will always be highly valued.

              I do not post much here. I come here to learn what I do not yet know and to gain a broader, deeper understanding of what happened, not to impose my thoughts (or beliefs) on others.

              I do take exception, however, to “projectile foolishness,” which characterizes well the post to which I replied. Or, more simply put: Don’t bash Marcy with empty nonsense… People here (like me, a Master Chief Legalman (retired) ) have got her back.

  9. richcpl says:

    But didn’t Comey sign off on the techniques? It’s commendable that he fought a heroic rear-guard battle, but that was to protect “the institution and the AG,” not principles, ethics, morality or even law. And he did sign off. Nuance is important and interesting, but the bottom line is what matters.

  10. lurkinlil says:

    In response to richcpl

    First let me say that you are extremely rude. But then you already know that, I’m sure.

    Second, I have only been reading here a short time, and I have no problem to follow the story. Maybe you should do as MadDog suggests and try someplace where they write for people with very low IQ’s.

  11. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Gack!
    I knew that!

    Just forgot momentarily…
    Could we pretty-please (with sugar on top) have a Glossary link in the TIMELINES box…?

  12. JohnJ says:

    You have no idea how often I have to use the right click ‘search Google for “xxx”‘ around here. *g*

    Oops, doesn’t work for CAT.

  13. Leen says:

    this day sure made me think differently about Comey
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxHjWYA50Ds

    So who will those who called for the rewriting, and implementing of the new torture laws distract the public with next. Who will they try to pass the responsibility for their actions off on. Two weeks on Pelosi..wonder how long the Comey distraction will last?

  14. greenbird4751 says:

    RoTL, you are good. Your comment should be at the beginning of the glossary, but there probably won’t be one. Much of what I like best about trying to keep up with Marcy is that if I don’t, before I know it SO MUCH has happened that I feel lost; it’s because I didn’t MAKE the time and TAKE the time to read every post. Sometimes I can’t read every post. I accept feeling lost; what I cannot accept is being spoon-fed.
    It will be a pleasure to stay up late, having missed a few posts…it’s a pleasure to NEED to catch up, no matter how late it gets.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Much of what I like best about trying to keep up with Marcy is that if I don’t, before I know it SO MUCH has happened that I feel lost; it’s because I didn’t MAKE the time and TAKE the time to read every post. Sometimes I can’t read every post. I accept feeling lost; what I cannot accept is being spoon-fed.

      Thanks for kind words.
      I wish that I could keep up with Marcy; there’s no possible way that I can!

      There are certain threads (anthrax) that I simply don’t read b/c it’s one ‘theme’ she covers that I find too disturbing – but also, just involves details that I don’t have time to track.

      I try to pick ‘themes’ and follow them.
      But I suspect that you also have that sense of ‘wow! maybe I do get some of what’s going on!’ when you read a post that really makes you think, or that pulls back the veil, so to speak.

      Plus, there are enough ‘experts’ around these parts that when I don’t understand things, someone explains without making me feel like too much of a foolish soul. But it does require reading following things over time, IMHO.

      Nevertheless, that’s part of the ‘addiction’, or engagement, or satisfaction, eh?

  15. timbo says:

    Good to know the NYTimes is holding on to news of national import as long as they can so that they’re political pals in hotwater over torture and war crimes and try to win a battle for public opinion…inside the United States. And yet another argument for some other country to start trying our war criminals ASAP.

Comments are closed.