Saturday, December 8, 2007

The Bamboo Shute Party

Ok! we haven't heard if the GOP has defended the CIA for inserting Bamboo Shutes under anybodies fingernails lately. However, the broader point is that many of the current 35% Bush supporters would joyfully defend a whole range to torture methods to defeat the inhuman Islamofacsists. Yesterday's article in the New York Times has stirred the blogosphere, left and right into a gathering storm as to who, why and where destroyed what most consider videotape evidence of possible criminal acts of torture.

If you believe the Times and their "government officials" sources everyone one in the Bush government and especially Bush himself are completely innocent and many actually voiced opposition to CIA's plan to destroy the tapes of interrogations of two Al Quaida leaders Abu Zubaydah and ABD as-Rahim as-Nashiri reportedly involved in the 9-11 attacks. According to the Times sources a single individual, Jose A. Rodriguez, the then chief of the Directorate of Operations is responsible for defying the entire Bush administration , his superior at CIA and Congress to authorize the destruction of the tapes.

Of course, the pinko left-wing rag New York Times is now being quoted profusely by wingnuts as vindication of any White House involvement in the sordid affair. Here are some sample from our friends in fact-free quadrant of the blogosphere.

Here's Captain Ed, the sometimes reasonable voice on the right.

In other words, Rodriguez decided for himself what his legal obligations required in terms of retention. Despite the expressed will of Congress, the White House, and the CIA's own attorneys, Rodriguez destroyed the tapes -- even though his own boss had gone on record as demanding their retention. Afterwards, the agency didn't bother to inform anyone of the destruction for almost a year, and lied about the one-time existence of the tapes to federal prosecutors working on the Moussaoui case.

This clears the White House of responsibility for the decision and the cover-up. Mark Mazzetti reports that George Bush didn't know about the destruction until Hayden announced it publicly on Thursday

A different Twist from MacsmindHe goes after his own.

Honestly, I would expect the left to go ga-ga, but it’s the right leaning bloggers which reinforce my belief that some will do anything to appear “mainstream”. All the holding of principles and maintaining the “rule of law” sounds nice and it gets you hits - especially from the lefty blogs who scream - “See even they agree!”

And from Jules Crittenden, who once again so nobly points out operational ties between, the Democratic National Committee and Al Quaida.
It is worth noting that not only would these tapes be of compelling interest to news organizations such as al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya, CNN, CBS, BBC, etc., they also could be very significant to the political operations of organizations such as, the Democratic National Committee, and al-Qaeda.

And Gateway Pundit takes the bait hook, line and stinker.

Call Off the Dogs... White House Advised CIA Not to Destroy Tapes

Bum Deal.
The White House advised the CIA not to destroy the interrogation tapes of two Al-Qaeda killers but the CIA destroyed the tapes anyway.
Prairie Pundit has the latest on this from The New York Times.

The always reliable folks at the aptly named Hot Air

Pretty much everyone in Washington is claiming to have urged the CIA not to destroy
those DVDs
posted at 1:08 pm on December 8, 2007 by Bryan

More to follow.


ThinkProgress is making the pushback with comment on the NYT story from Ron Susskind.

"The full blame for the destruction of the tapes has fallen on Jose Rodriguez, then the CIA’s head of the clandestine division. Rodriguez reportedly undertook the destruction of the tapes in a unilateral manner, without receiving any instructions from his bosses or giving them advance notice of his actions.

Last night on CNN, Ron Suskind — author of the One Percent Doctrine — said the idea that Rodriquez didn’t get “some authorization from above” is “hard to believe.” “It simply doesn’t work that way,” Suskind said, noting that “at this point, lots was being authorized from the White House in terms of the CIA.” Watch it:"

No comments:

Post a Comment