Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Neo-Shill



This so called CIA person Mike Kiriakou, that supposedly had some thing to do with waterboarding Abu Zubaydah suddenly playing the part of 'whistleblower' to inject an element of truth to an otherwise illegal torture scenario is a deliberate attempt by the Reich Wing of the White House to legitimize an crimminal offense, torture, by saying "it worked".

Combine this with the deliberate destruction of video of the offending action(torture) the resulting story, "we wanted to protect out agents identities" and you have a effort to deceive by the highest office in the land.

Listen to Jonathan Turley explain it:



These Fourth Reich Fascist assholes are pedaling as fast as they can to bury this to avoid prison for the charges that can be brought against them, the last straw has been broken, the end should be near for the Fourth Reich.

I hope.

29 comments:

DEN said...

Liar, liar, panties on fire!

"All interrogations have been done within the legal framework that was set out after Sept. 11," said White House spokesperson Dana Perino. "They are measures that have been tough and limited. They are safe, and they've been very effective in helping prevent terrorist attacks on this country."

Does anyone believe her BS?

Micki said...

bush will continue to lie to us about tortura del agua, which he refers to as an alternative set of procedures, because he has no conscience. However, any way you slice it, Kiriakou has confirmed what many of us *knew* for a long time -- THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION USES TORTURE. (Kiriakou, IMO, is no saint -- he's providing cover to the bushies because the torture "worked" as far as they're concerned.)

Justin Frank, MD, psychiatrist, professor at George Washington University Hospital, and author of “Bush on the Couch,” searches for insight on how bush thinks.  See DANGERS OF A CORNERED BUSH

“His pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information woven into what he asserts is the whole truth...He lies—not just to us, but to himself as well...What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt—for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.... So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand.”

Alan said...

This so called CIA person Mike Kiriakou...

What got me was... that dude wasn't even there when the waterboarding happened. How da fk does he know 'it worked', and how long it took for the guy to 'break'? He could very well be making that shyt up... in fact I'd almost bet on it.

Alan said...

Citing Destruction of Torture Tapes, ACLU Asks Court to Hold CIA in Contempt

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a motion asking a federal judge to hold the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in contempt, charging that the agency flouted a court order when it destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of prisoners in its custody. In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the ACLU and other organizations in October 2003 and May 2004, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the CIA to produce or identify all records pertaining to the treatment of detainees in its custody. Despite the court’s ruling, the CIA never produced the tapes or even acknowledged their existence. Last week, in anticipation of media reports concerning the tapes, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged that the CIA had made the tapes in 2002 but destroyed them in 2005.
================
more at the link

Gerald said...

Here is my perceptual opinion of Hitler Bush. He is a Nazi; he is a wacko, a sicko, and a psycho. He is also demented, deranged, diabolical, and demonic. He is a mass murderer and a war criminal. He also displays a depraved indiffernce toward the killing and torture of human life. He spews corruption, greed, hatred, and incessant lies.

POSTERS, HAVE I FORGOTTEN ANYTHING IN DESCRIBING HITLER BUSH?

Micki said...

Gun-toting BELLINGHAM HERALD POLITICAL REPORTER uses photo of himself with AK-47 to counter bias claims

This little pipsqueak from our local rag got some "unwelcome" attention from Editor & Publisher today.

Gerald said...

I also forgot to add that Hitler Bush is an idiot and a nutcase.

He also makes me puke!!!

Micki said...

He could very well be making that shyt up... in fact I'd almost bet on it.

I wouldn't doubt it either! He could be making it up since they can no longer deny they did use waterboarding. So, the game plan is now, to admit (reluctantly) they did do waterboarding, but claim "it worked" as though that gives them moral standing for *protecting the American people.*

Micki said...

He also makes me puke!!!

Gerald, gee, you've never told us that before! :-))

Micki said...

Alan-the-Pardon-Pundit was right that bush wouldn't give Libby a pardon this X-mas.  Of course, Libby will get one before bush leaves office because by withdrawing his appeal he remains a convicted felon, cannot vote, cannot practice law. (But, of course, he's already been rewarded with a high-dollar job at AEI.) 

There's scuttlebutt that if bush had pardoned Libby now, Congress may have found the cajones to compel bush to appear before Congress to explain his pardon.  (There is precedent to compel a president to appear before Congress -- President Ford had to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to respond to questions about his Nixon pardon.  And even Nixon agreed to a written deposition about Watergate. And! Look what Congress put Clinton through.)

Can you even imagine bush before Congress, 'splaining himself as The Decider?  Bush would have created even more political problems for the GOP and a bigger public relations' nightmare would have ensued.  Of course, bush and his boyfriends would have done everything within their power to keep him from appearing before Congress -- but it sure would have "made" news.

DEN said...

Center for Constitutional Rights sez:

Help us make sure that there is a special counsel to look into the destruction of the CIA torture tapes! Please send a letter to your Senators asking them to support a special counsel to look into the CIA's obstruction of torture evidence.

Go here: CCR

Thanks!

Gerald said...

Micki, at my age I need to repeat myself in order to remember what I have said.

According to Jonathan Turley of George Washington U. Law School the destruction of interrogation tapes is very serious and he says that six crimes may have been committed. He also believes that Hitler Bush knew about the destroyed tapes.

Hitler Bush has been committing impeachable crimes for years in the Oval office.

No wonder the American citizens have such contempt for the laws of this devil incarnate country.

Micki said...

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK -- GO HERE, THEN CLICK ON THE LATEST BARNEY CAM VIDEO AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Well, this video certainly got me into the HOLIDAY SPIRIT!

All I could say after seeing it was, JESUS CHRIST!

Micki said...

BTW, that video was producced because 9/11 shut down Christmas visitors to the White House.

9/11 all the time!

Oy.

Karen Hughes said...

:-w

New emoticon, which means "George W. Bush speaks with forked tongue."

DEN said...

BLUAAAAAAAAAA! AHHH, BLUAAAAAAAAA!

There goes lunch.

DEN said...

More sickening information:

When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, was it also destroying the truth about 9/11? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day--and the definition of the enemy in this war on terror that George W. Bush launched in response to the tragedy--comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers. The commission was never allowed to interview the prisoners, or speak with those who did, and was instead forced to rely on what the CIA was willing to relay.

@ WAPO

BLUAAAAAAAA! AK, AK,

I really need to get a bucket, the constant mopping.....

Alan said...

Aw heck, the CIA didn't send John Kiriakou out to 'cover'and 'clean it up' for 'em. The reason I know this is... they are 'furious' with him for blowing the whistle. *cough*

CIA Efforts to Prosecute Whistle-Blower Spy Stopped

The former CIA intelligence official who went public on ABC News about the agency's use of waterboarding in interrogations, John Kiriakou, apparently will not be the subject of a Justice Department investigation, even though some CIA officials believe he revealed classified information about the use of waterboarding.

"They were furious at the CIA this morning, but cooler heads have apparently prevailed for the time being," a senior Justice Department official told the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

DEN said...

We don't torture! GWB 9/6/06

carey said...

Hey--finally a second. Well, not really. Tests to study for.

Last night's newscast was unbelievable.

David B. Benson said...

Carey --- Why was it unbelievable?

Carey said...

David,

Because of what Turley said. Most of all, watching that high-pitched Kiriakou. There are so many elements to this thing, the CIA tapes.

Did you hear that Andrew Young actually said, in a discussion of Obama's degree of blackness, "Clinton's had more African-American women than Obama has."

Major WTF? Major.

Micki said...

Carey, Andrew Young's attempt at humor was not exactly "off-color" but it was definitely ridiculous. However what he actually said was:

"Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack," the former UN ambassador quipped on a live TV interview - immediately adding, "I'm clowning."

Just because someone is a former ambassador, it doesn't mean he's gonna retain his diplomatic skills as he ages. :-))

DEN said...

Thats a stupid thing to say.

Andrew Young?

Might be a phony story.

DEN said...

In the media the on thing that stands out is ratings and the commercials they bring, never mind the BS.

Filtering is where it gets gray area.

The truth is out there.

DEN said...

Get out of town by sundown buster!

A tiny town called Potrero just north of the border in California, an area ravaged by the recent wildfires, just stood up and resoundingly said no to another impending disaster: Blackwater moving to town. It was the nation’s first ever electoral vote on Blackwater and it was a massive people-powered grassroots victory over the mercenaries. Every “stop Blackwater” candidate won by at least 63% (results here). It was an an enormous statement to Blackwater: stay out, you are not the kind of neighbors we want in our community. It is also a blistering statement by a very conservative town to reject the Bush world view. Our nation is not better served by having a privatized Army and there is nothing pro-troop about supporting Blackwater.

C&L has the story.

Local opposition like this really convinces me there is some intelligent life out there.

Micki said...

Might be a phony story.

Well, Den, even if it's not phony, it's pretty darned pathetic that it got media play, with all the other more important issues that need attention and real reporting.

Onward.

Micki said...

Okay, end of the day....so I'll post the entire article:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/13/sciencedebate2008/print.html

Let's have a presidential debate on science

Can any of the candidates lead America back to the head of the class in science and technology?
By Shawn Lawrence Otto

Dec. 13, 2007 | In the past few weeks, marine biologists working in Papua, New Guinea, spoke about the need to ban fishing in certain parts of the ocean hard hit by rising temperatures. Meanwhile, in the American Midwest, stem cell pioneer James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin at Madison announced what may be a Nobel Prize-worthy discovery: how to turn ordinary skin cells into stem cells.

These two events -- separated by some 10,000 miles -- are nonetheless intimately related. Both highlight the single most constant theme of life in the past decades: how science and technology are changing our world and have become inseparable from politics.

This juncture of science and politics is the major concern of a new initiative called ScienceDebate2008. Nearly all of America's major policy issues, ranging from global warming to stem cell research, energy policy to pandemic-disease control, data privacy to healthcare, national defense to ocean management -- or a manned mission to Mars -- have science and technology at their heart, providing considerable dangers and immense opportunities. Successfully grappling with these issues, and more like them, will require policymakers to have vision and a more thorough understanding of science than ever before.

This presents us with a growing problem in our national political dialogue. We have come to take the scientific and technological transformation of our lives for granted -- the iPhone and Wii weren't even words in the common lexicon 18 months ago. Four years ago if someone asked you to "Google it" you might have taken offense, and five years ago the idea of a hybrid car was fringe. Could something like that actually work? Yes, as it turns out, pretty well.

But on the policy side of this cultural change, we haven't kept up. We have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the expectations we place on our elected officials; we have allowed the wrong issues to sidetrack political debates. No matter one's political flavor, this is a matter of increasing practical concern. In a science-influenced world, we need and deserve leaders who understand the basic rules of the game, or we're going to get shut out.

Today nations like India and China are producing a higher percentage of scientists and engineers than the United States is. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," outlines educational and demographic trends which suggest that the United States may founder in the global economy without a concerted effort toward continuing technological innovation and competitiveness. To get there we need to sharply step up our investments in our higher education research institutions, many of which are state universities. But with no-new-tax pledges and recurring budget crises in several of the states, the stage is set for old-model policymaking debates over taxes and ideology to derail investment in higher education, even as we battle in a global economy where all the rules have changed.

And the states may have a limited ability to address the issue on their own. The recent Urban Institute study "Into the Eye of the Storm: Assessing the Evidence on Science and Engineering Education, Quality, and Workforce Demand" suggests that it's not just our graduation rates or educational investments that are the problem. College graduates in science and technology are, increasingly, not taking the available opening-level jobs in their fields, jobs that are being filled by more eager immigrants. This trend has received publicity in the unskilled laborer workforce -- which has driven much of the illegal immigration debate -- but it's also present in our high-tech workforce.

Is the next generation of young Americans too lazy to work? Or is something else afoot? The study suggests that downward wage pressure is one factor. But there are others. Can employees expect job stability in a corporate culture that continues to move science and engineering jobs overseas? Will they have the opportunity to engage in big challenges and earn the respect of their peers and our culture?

Popular and political anti-intellectualism is taking a toll on our national esprit de corps and on our economic security. In a time when we lack major national science and engineering policy goals, and when it's not of status to be a scientist, or a teacher, or a laborer, who is going to want to do it? And yet intellectual candidates for public office are seldom perceived as cool; in the high school parlance of our national politics, they're not "the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with."

How can we transform our state and federal governments -- indeed our national culture -- to succeed in a world where science and technology set the new rules of the game? It starts with the quality of the "deciders" we put in office. We need to elect leaders who are able to understand and apply the best science, who will talk about science in public forums, who will prioritize it in policy decisions, and who will make science education a state and national priority before we are outclassed.

We do this in business. We should do it in our national politics. And the way to do it without one candidate sticking out his or her neck intellectually and risking the loss of beer-slinging street cred is to level the playing field for everyone: Let's have a presidential debate about science and technology.

In the two weeks since the beginning of this initiative, it has taken off like a wildfire. More than 60 distinguished scientists and university presidents have joined a broad coalition of elected leaders, journalists, business leaders, writers and others in a call for the presidential candidates to participate in a debate dedicated science and technology policy issues like climate change, stem cell research, renewable energy, bioethics, the human genome and a dozen others.

The signers include Nobel laureates like Steve Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Harold Varmus, past director of the National Institutes of Health; university presidents like Princeton's Shirley Tilghman; congresspersons of either stripe, like Betty McCollum and Wayne Gilchrest; former presidential science committee advisor Richard Garwin and science advisors John Gibbons and Neal Lane; science journalists like the editor in chief of Science, Donald Kennedy, and the editor in chief of Scientific American, John Rennie; business leaders like Hyatt Development CEO Nicholas Pritzker; and the current and several past presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

This flood of passionate endorsements by so many distinguished names in such a short period of time suggests a hunger in the body politic, a deep-seated concern among leaders across a broad swath of our society that is not currently being addressed in our electoral process.

We have all become painfully aware in recent years that it is not only irresponsible but dangerous and expensive to distort and repackage scientific conclusions for political purposes. Our national security and economic prosperity depend upon leadership that looks the truth squarely in the eye, and makes decisions informed by the facts and the best scientific counsel available. Only in this way will we remain viable in a fiercely competitive global marketplace.

This year more than ever, America needs and deserves to hear from the candidates for president about where they stand on science-related issues and the role science will play in their policymaking process as we tackle our many challenges in a world being utterly transformed by the explosion of science and technology.

-- By Shawn Lawrence Otto

DEN said...

That shows the education deficit in the USA. Before any of that can happen, the first years of school and throughout, must be devoted to educating youth already being solicited by commercial interests in an effort to turn them into good little consumers.

There simply are not many kids qualified to attend college with the poor education at the lower levels.

They want capitalism and to make a profit? Fine then put 10% of your profit toward education at the lower levels, better teachers, better facilities, better curriculum, corporate interns in all areas.

By investing in our youth our future is made, neglect that and you will have what we have today, empty headed, IPod, cell phone addled self servers.

WHEW! heavy stuff before bedtime, I never could shutup.

ZZZZZZZ