CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

[ConcordCowboy]

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders


Secret prison system could provide legal cover

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22217926/


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.


The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

Officials 'well aware of their obligation'
At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books - and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."


In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."

For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Government obstruction?
Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.

"It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said.

He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."

Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter. He gave the government until Friday to a respond to Remes' request.

The tapes were also destroyed at a time when attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were seeking interrogation videos that might help show their client wasn't a part of the 9/11 attacks.

In May 2005, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to disclose whether interrogations were recorded. The government objected. In a modified order on Nov. 3, 2005, the judge asked whether the government "has video or audio tapes" of specific interrogations. Eleven days later, the government said it did not.

"The CIA did not say to the court in its original filing that it had no terrorist tapes at all. It would be wrong to assert that," CIA spokesman George Little said.

Last month, the CIA admitted to Brinkema and a circuit judge that it had failed to hand over tapes of enemy combatant witnesses. Those interrogations were not part of the CIA's detention program and were not conducted or recorded by the agency, the agency said.

[sacase]

How many times are you going to spam the board with this thread?

Just to humor you, the IC destroys stuff regularly. If it is something they are not supposed to have then by law they are required to destroy it. We had to clean out our case files if they were closed out and over a year old. We would write a MFR and put it in the archive and destroy all the documents.

[silverbear]

How many times are you going to spam the board with this thread?

Just to humor you, the IC destroys stuff regularly. If it is something they are not supposed to have then by law they are required to destroy it. We had to clean out our case files if they were closed out and over a year old. We would write a MFR and put it in the archive and destroy all the documents.

How very curious, you don't seem to have any problems with all the global warming threads, but you get angry when Concord wants to talk about the CIA violating a court order by destroying potentially incriminating evidence...

It's a political topic, this is the Politics Zone, so how exactly is Concord "spamming" by posting threads directly on topic??

Could this be another right wing attempt at censorship?? :rolleyes:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't like the idea of destroying evidence. To me it boils down to trying to destroy evidence to evade accountability. IMO it is a case of them doing the opposite of what they say.

How many times have we heard people say, if you have nothing to hide than you don't have to worry when they talk about their spying program. However they do the direct opposite and destroy evidence of doing something they say they are not doing. Something they tell others not to do.

However with that said.

It is my understanding that in this case there is a loophole of sorts.

I think the court order was that there could be no destroying of evidence concerning GITMO and these tapes/sessions did not happen at Gitmo.

Now that may be nitpicking however if that is indeed the case that the order was only for GITMO, than it would seem they did not technically break the court order.

[burmafrd]

One must remember the mentality of spies and spooks. Keeping records and tapes is not something they like to do ANYTIME.

[ConcordCowboy]

How many times are you going to spam the board with this thread?

Just to humor you, the IC destroys stuff regularly. If it is something they are not supposed to have then by law they are required to destroy it. We had to clean out our case files if they were closed out and over a year old. We would write a MFR and put it in the archive and destroy all the documents.

Spam the board?:rolleyes:

I posted three threads on the subject and they were three DIFFERENT articles from the news.

This is the political zone and these articles are political...so you connect the dots.

If you don't like the subject...that's your problem...don't shoot the messenger.

[burmafrd]

No but you can bore people to death with the same topic thread.

[ConcordCowboy]

No but you can bore people to death with the same topic thread.

Then don't read the frickin thread.

I think it was pretty clear what the thread was about...but here you are posting in it.

Amazing.

Don't open the thread if it bores you...pretty simple.

[silverbear]

No but you can bore people to death with the same topic thread.

You mean, like you did with yet another thread dedicated to the global warming argument??

[the fake norm hitzges]

quiet please.....

thank you

this is my first post.
im a regular at cowboys-forum with skeety and the boys.

i see this forum has bed wetting leftist also.

[jterrell]

This to me is a man up scenario.

If you do something then stop trying to hide it or cover it up.
This administration is "watergating" and people are inclined ot defend it... quite odd really.

Bush's policy has been a mess so I give him a very hard time for that.
But this stuff he is doing that is flatly illegal... wow. This from the party of moral do-gooders, high-minded superior beings and God-fearing tee-totalers....

If you do something wrong, just say my bad and move on, do not have a big weenie roast with evidence as the kindling.

[Cajuncowboy]

Good. Sometimes the courts are wrong and the interest of America's safety is not the utmost concern to them.

[Hoov]

This to me is a man up scenario.

If you do something then stop trying to hide it or cover it up.
This administration is "watergating" and people are inclined ot defend it... quite odd really.

Bush's policy has been a mess so I give him a very hard time for that.
But this stuff he is doing that is flatly illegal... wow. This from the party of moral do-gooders, high-minded superior beings and God-fearing tee-totalers....

If you do something wrong, just say my bad and move on, do not have a big weenie roast with evidence as the kindling.Right, this is the problem i have with the republican party using terms like "family values" and quoting the bible or calling our nation a christian nation, or trying to support their actions by linking their stance to what is "biblical". When the majority of them are no better than high paid hustlers and conmen, taking bribes and letting the almighty dollar influence their every decision, acting selfishly and taking their own intrests above that of the people they are supposed to be leading. Its one thing if politicians are going to be that way, but even worse when they bring god into it to defend their actions when they are full of BS.

[Hoov]

Good. Sometimes the courts are wrong and the interest of America's safety is not the utmost concern to them.
Yes, and sometimes the president is wrong, sometimes the congess is wrong, sometimes the laws are wrong, sometimes the police are wrong, sometimes the church is wrong. According to your statement everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and ignore authority, or is it just certain people are allowed that distinction

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes, and sometimes the president is wrong, sometimes the congess is wrong, sometimes the laws are wrong, sometimes the police are wrong, sometimes the church is wrong. According to your statement everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong and ignore authority, or is it just certain people are allowed that distinction

When the courts say to do something that can harm the security of the nation then they need to ignore them.

Does this mean anything anymore?:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It should.

[Hoov]

When the courts say to do something that can harm the security of the nation then they need to ignore them.

Does this mean anything anymore?:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It should.I can agree with that concept, but it is easy for those in power to abuse. Our leaders should be held to more scrutiny than the average person and should have to walk a higher path....but it doesnt work like that because there is never any accountability anymore. Anything can be covered up or destroyed if it suits their purpose.

[Cajuncowboy]

I can agree with that concept, but it is easy for those in power to abuse. Our leaders should be held to more scrutiny than the average person and should have to walk a higher path....but it doesnt work like that because there is never any accountability anymore. Anything can be covered up or destroyed if it suits their purpose.

I agree with you but this is one of those times where the courts are wrong and the protection of our country and our military is at stake. We cannot have these videos getting out. What do you think would happen if one of the liberal senators got a hold of one of these videos? It would be youtubed in a moments notice and fingers pointed saying, "look how evil Bush is".

While at the same time, getting the entire musilm population all riled up again and then starting riots and and such. If they did that over the koran getting flushed or some captured prisoners with panties on their heads,imagine this.

AS I said, the courts do not interpret the law anymore, they write it from the bench based on their own bias.They don't always have America's best interest at heart.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I agree with you but this is one of those times where the courts are wrong and the protection of our country and our military is at stake. We cannot have these videos getting out. What do you think would happen if one of the liberal senators got a hold of one of these videos? It would be youtubed in a moments notice and fingers pointed saying, "look how evil Bush is".

While at the same time, getting the entire musilm population all riled up again and then starting riots and and such. If they did that over the koran getting flushed or some captured prisoners with panties on their heads,imagine this.

AS I said, the courts do not interpret the law anymore, they write it from the bench based on their own bias.They don't always have America's best interest at heart.

I kind of doubt a senator is going to leak out the videos. You and your youtube paranoia.

I don't think you mind so much when members of the administration give out info about a CIA agent.

Also to my knowledge the only IMAGEs or Video leaked out so far, have came from our very own troops or someone else in Iraq.

Furthermore it would seem that you are eager to give away constitutional rights in order for security...the founding fathers would love your mentality.

[Cajuncowboy]

I kind of doubt a senator is going to leak out the videos. You and your youtube paranoia.

I don't think you mind so much when members of the administration give out info about a CIA agent.

Also to my knowledge the only IMAGEs or Video leaked out so far, have came from our very own troops or someone else in Iraq.

Furthermore it would seem that you are eager to give away constitutional rights in order for security...the founding fathers would love your mentality.

Pat Leahy. nuff said.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Pat Leahy. nuff said.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?


So Both Pat and members of the Bush Admin leaked info.

Have any of them leaked video to youtube yet?


Have you ever read the constitution?

Have you ever heard the oath the president takes when taking office?

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[the fake norm hitzges]

Pat Leahy. nuff said.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?



good ole leaky leahy.yes ,lets let the traitors at the new york times get their sadicious hands on classified documents or video footage of our undercover cia agents,lets make these tapes public so we can get these agents cover reviealed and possibly killed.par for the course these new york slimes.while they come to the defence of a fake undercover cia agent named valerie plame who was nothing more than a pencil pushing desk jockey.

[arglebargle]

Nice example of what I call the 'Hollywood Effect'. Bad guys do a bad thing and they are evil: Good guys do the same thing, and it's okay, 'cause they're the good guys.

Now I have lived in totalitarian countries, and the local people there who would visit us, even just socially, were taking a serious risk. Our employees (all pretty decent people) told us apologetically that they had to inform on us to the local intelligence organizations.

So, when you throw the spotlight on someone who has been undercover, you endanger everyone they have ever come into contact with. The spy agencies in those countries will be going through their files to find out everyone who associated with them. And people around the world who might consider helping the USA look at this, and think. 'These people cannot be trusted.'

Just compare the original outrage from the administration about the Plame leak, with their stances once it became apparent that they had done it themselves. I doubt that administration supporters would be so understanding if this had been done by someone they do not like. Thus the 'Hollywood Effect'.

Cajun, this administration has been seizing and centralizing power from the get go. The Imperial Presidency is a dangerous precedent, in anyone's hands, of any political stripe. And while this might sit well with your views now, are you really willing to hand this excessive amount of power over to anyone? Counting on electing benevelent dictators is a losing proposition in my book.

[the fake norm hitzges]

i challenge anyone to name one example of a freedom we lost do to the bush administration.and please dont say the patriot act.every law the patriot act has in it already existed before 9-11.
all the patriot act does is allow us protection from terrorist where before it was applied to organized crime.

[Cajuncowboy]

i challenge anyone to name one example of a freedom we lost do to the bush administration.and please dont say the patriot act.every law the patriot act has in it already existed before 9-11.
all the patriot act does is allow us protection from terrorist where before it was applied to organized crime.

They won't be able to. There is not one thing that you cannot do now that you couldn't do before 9/11. They just get their panties in a wad because they may have to wait a bit longer at the airport to keep their butts safe. Sad really that people don't have an understanding of the enemy we face or the times in which we live.

You can't just pick up the ear piece on the telephone and ask Sarah to ring the diner for you anymore.

[jterrell]

They won't be able to. There is not one thing that you cannot do now that you couldn't do before 9/11. They just get their panties in a wad because they may have to wait a bit longer at the airport to keep their butts safe. Sad really that people don't have an understanding of the enemy we face or the times in which we live.

You can't just pick up the ear piece on the telephone and ask Sarah to ring the diner for you anymore.

The obvious thing is get on a plane without a 20 minute pat down and with tight restrictions for what you can carry. Not that I disagree with the precautions but to act is if pre-9/11 and post 9/11 are the same is ludicrous.

And to act as if Bush hasn't used any excuse possible to grab more presidential power is just as absurd.

The Patriot Act was not in place prior to 9/11 at all. Almost every possible domestic and foreign intelligence agency gained wide berths after 9/11, many of them unknown to the population for long periods of time and most of them illegally.

And where are all these spies we have uncovered and arrests we have made based on all this extra leeway???

Perhaps you feel comfortable being treated like a criminal but I do not. I will gladly fight terrorists for trying to steal my freedom and I'll do the same with a bunch of moronic right wing baby hitlers.

Believe it or not Bush was not decried king by /Allah/Buddha or whomever. He was elected and sworn to uphold laws he now decides to break when convenient. The part of the constitution you so love to quote is with regard to the populace not the president. And of course it is with regards to specifically the kind of broad illegal actions he is taking against which we should rebel. Ironic but almost expected that you would not only misread it but misuse it to such as extent.

When Bill Clinton lied to save face and his family from embarrassment it was a capital offense worthy of impeachment but the current president lies and it's all in the interest of safety ... how friggin convenient.

The biggest threat to this country isn't some raghead in a hole, it is idiots who think we should just give up all our 200 year old rights because we want to be "safe".

The mongoloid in the office had his own party in control of congress and if he couldn't pass law changes that is on his own shoulders or is because the measures he wanted to pass were decidedly backwards.

[the fake norm hitzges]

The obvious thing is get on a plane without a 20 minute pat down and with tight restrictions for what you can carry. Not that I disagree with the precautions but to act is if pre-9/11 and post 9/11 are the same is ludicrous.

And to act as if Bush hasn't used any excuse possible to grab more presidential power is just as absurd.

The Patriot Act was not in place prior to 9/11 at all. Almost every possible domestic and foreign intelligence agency gained wide berths after 9/11, many of them unknown to the population for long periods of time and most of them illegally.

And where are all these spies we have uncovered and arrests we have made based on all this extra leeway???

Perhaps you feel comfortable being treated like a criminal but I do not. I will gladly fight terrorists for trying to steal my freedom and I'll do the same with a bunch of moronic right wing baby hitlers.

Believe it or not Bush was not decried king by /Allah/Buddha or whomever. He was elected and sworn to uphold laws he now decides to break when convenient. The part of the constitution you so love to quote is with regard to the populace not the president. And of course it is with regards to specifically the kind of broad illegal actions he is taking against which we should rebel. Ironic but almost expected that you would not only misread it but misuse it to such as extent.

When Bill Clinton lied to save face and his family from embarrassment it was a capital offense worthy of impeachment but the current president lies and it's all in the interest of safety ... how friggin convenient.

The biggest threat to this country isn't some raghead in a hole, it is idiots who think we should just give up all our 200 year old rights because we want to be "safe".

The mongoloid in the office had his own party in control of congress and if he couldn't pass law changes that is on his own shoulders or is because the measures he wanted to pass were decidedly backwards.


there are many misconceptions in the above post.
1.no freedom has yet been lost
2.the patriot act laws existed pre 9-11
3.bush hasnt grabbed any more power than any other president.
the real power grab is coming from activist black robbed tyrannts posing as judges.

[Cajuncowboy]

The obvious thing is get on a plane without a 20 minute pat down and with tight restrictions for what you can carry. Not that I disagree with the precautions but to act is if pre-9/11 and post 9/11 are the same is ludicrous.

And to act as if Bush hasn't used any excuse possible to grab more presidential power is just as absurd.

The Patriot Act was not in place prior to 9/11 at all. Almost every possible domestic and foreign intelligence agency gained wide berths after 9/11, many of them unknown to the population for long periods of time and most of them illegally.

And where are all these spies we have uncovered and arrests we have made based on all this extra leeway???

Perhaps you feel comfortable being treated like a criminal but I do not. I will gladly fight terrorists for trying to steal my freedom and I'll do the same with a bunch of moronic right wing baby hitlers.

Believe it or not Bush was not decried king by /Allah/Buddha or whomever. He was elected and sworn to uphold laws he now decides to break when convenient. The part of the constitution you so love to quote is with regard to the populace not the president. And of course it is with regards to specifically the kind of broad illegal actions he is taking against which we should rebel. Ironic but almost expected that you would not only misread it but misuse it to such as extent.

When Bill Clinton lied to save face and his family from embarrassment it was a capital offense worthy of impeachment but the current president lies and it's all in the interest of safety ... how friggin convenient.

The biggest threat to this country isn't some raghead in a hole, it is idiots who think we should just give up all our 200 year old rights because we want to be "safe".

The mongoloid in the office had his own party in control of congress and if he couldn't pass law changes that is on his own shoulders or is because the measures he wanted to pass were decidedly backwards.

I can tell you most of this is BS but the one I will focus on is the first thing you said. I fly probably 2 weeks out each month. I have NEVER had a 20 minute pat down. Mostly, all I have to do is take my laptop out of my bag and take my shoes off and put them on the belt. (Thank you Richard Reid).

IT generally takes me about 5 minutes to get through security. I have had only one time where I was pulled to the side and be wanded and that was because I kept setting the metal detector off with my watch in Newark.

What's moronic is that one American would compare any other American Hitler and you should be ashamed of yourself. I know I am ashamed for you. Once again, you cannot point to a single freedom you have lost and use it like the left wing media does to deride Bush. You honestly are no better than they are.

Oh and by the way, Give me just one lie that has been proven that Bush told? And don't go with the whole WMD thing because you know that wasn't a lie.

You will not be able to just like you were not able to give one example of a freedom you have lost.

Also, have you ever wondered why the Muslims in this country hasn't risen up because of all these so called restrictions on their freedom??? Trust me, I speak with them once a month because I go to Detroit (man I hate that city) once a month and talk with some of them.

It's because they know it's important for our freedom as a country. They are the ones who are under the most pressure from the Patriot Act. But because some people in this country are such pansies, they cry and whine about this country being protected.

All your kind wants to do is whine like a bunch of little babies and stomp your feet and hold your breath till you get back in the White House.

I will do all in my power to ensure that you people don't get back in.

[Ben_n_austin]

"Childrens do learn"

[Ben_n_austin]

And don't go with the whole WMD thing because you know that wasn't a lie.



He lied about the Scooter Libby ordeal, purposely implicating a CIA agent.

You're talking about protecting our military. That seems odd. Can you tell me what CIA agents are? I beg that question



He lied about doing cocaine--or refused to talk about it. He says that he's religious, but I highly doubt that.

Do I need to go on?

[arglebargle]

I don't doubt Bush's faith, just his ability to get good counsel and make good decisions.

What about the complaints of Chuck Baldwin? He certainly cannot be accused of being a 'whiney liberal' by those who think what's going on is just fine.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/020105ChuckBaldwin.shtml

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/TimBaldwin.htm

"Following are examples of freedoms which President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have already expunged (as reported by the Associated Press):

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them."


Certainly there are a number of other folks who think the power of the presidency is becoming too dangerous. This was, at least in the past, a central tenant of many conservatives. Like fiscal economy, or at least lip service to fiscal economy.

[BrAinPaiNt]

i challenge anyone to name one example of a freedom we lost do to the bush administration.and please dont say the patriot act.every law the patriot act has in it already existed before 9-11.
all the patriot act does is allow us protection from terrorist where before it was applied to organized crime.

Why the need to make the patriot act in the first place.

It is because it EXPANDS upon some laws.

So although the laws existed prior to 9-11 it was not the same authority and in some cases structure to the existing laws.

It is nice however when some defend it by acting like it is just the same old thing which is silly because if that were the case, there would have been no need to create the patriot act in the first place.

The act gave expanded powers to law inforcement agencies, government officials, the admin and the Secretary of the Treasury.

So it is NOT the Same...nice try with semantics though.

As far as finding one example...The Government has already had portions of it overturned because they were found unconstitutional by federal courts.

So...no go for you.

[the fake norm hitzges]

Why the need to make the patriot act in the first place.

It is because it EXPANDS upon some laws.

So although the laws existed prior to 9-11 it was not the same authority and in some cases structure to the existing laws.

It is nice however when some defend it by acting like it is just the same old thing which is silly because if that were the case, there would have been no need to create the patriot act in the first place.

The act gave expanded powers to law inforcement agencies, government officials, the admin and the Secretary of the Treasury.

So it is NOT the Same...nice try with semantics though.

As far as finding one example...The Government has already had portions of it overturned because they were found unconstitutional by federal courts.

So...no go for you.


which proves my point about leftist activist judges making law from the bench.
not surprising though.
nancy pelosi thinks shes the commander-in-chief lol

[BrAinPaiNt]

which proves my point about leftist activist judges making law from the bench.
not surprising though.
nancy pelosi thinks shes the commander-in-chief lol

Or it could prove that they were indeed unconstitutional instead of anything not going the neo cons way being from leftish activist judges.

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot...but at least she does not have as much powers as the chimp in charge.

[Cajuncowboy]

He lied about the Scooter Libby ordeal, purposely implicating a CIA agent.

You're talking about protecting our military. That seems odd. Can you tell me what CIA agents are? I beg that question



He lied about doing cocaine--or refused to talk about it. He says that he's religious, but I highly doubt that.

Do I need to go on?

#1 HE didn't implicate any CIA agent.
#2 She wasn't an active undercover agent which is what that rule applies to.
#3 CIA agents? OK what does that have to do with protecting the CIA agents or anyone else from the military regarding this thread?
#4 He didn't lie about cocaine. Refusing to talk about and saying you didn't is not the same thing.
#5 Do you profess to know the man's heart? If so, you must be "Ben the magnificent" with all knowing powers.

And yes, please go on and tell us a lie he told. You have yet to do it.

[Cajuncowboy]

Or it could prove that they were indeed unconstitutional instead of anything not going the neo cons way being from leftish activist judges.

Nancy Pelosi is an idiot...but at least she does not have as much powers as the chimp in charge.

Hey Brain, now I know what the deal with the hair is. Your barber doesn't have scissors that go around horns. :p:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Hey Brain, now I know what the deal with the hair is. Your barber doesn't have scissors that go around horns. :p:

Without getting too much religion in this thread.

Often at work someone will say something along the lines of..."Not to be offensive, but has anyone ever said you look like , because you do?" To which I reply in a humorous way by saying...I think was a little skinnier.

So...I put the horns on there for three. reasons. One because I don't want someone to say something along those lines and get some religious fight going. Another being the angus pic on AC/DC's highway to album inspired me. Those are the actual horns taken from that picture. And last but not least...I AM a sexy devil.:p:

[Cajuncowboy]

Without getting too much religion in this thread.

Often at work someone will say something along the lines of..."Not to be offensive, but has anyone ever said you look like , because you do?" To which I reply in a humorous way by saying...I think was a little skinnier.

So...I put the horns on there for three. reasons. One because I don't want someone to say something along those lines and get some religious fight going. Another being the angus pic on AC/DC's highway to album inspired me. Those are the actual horns taken from that picture. And last but not least...I AM a sexy devil.:p:

OK. First you don't look like . A bit like John the Baptist but only because I can picture you in the wilderness eating bugs. Second, That's only 2 reasons because the last thing you said is all in your head. :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

#1 HE didn't implicate any CIA agent.

I have no way of knowing if it came from him or not. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was from Armitage, Rove, Cheney and Libby. Too bad Libby was the scape goat while the true guy, Armitage, got immunity.

#2 She wasn't an active undercover agent which is what that rule applies to.

According to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, acting as Attorney General in Ashcroft's place, She was a covert CIA agent at the time. I mention who the person was who came to this conclusion and who appointed him to make sure nobody can scream...liberal leftist activist judges.

Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

He could not charge Libby with outing a CIA agent as he could not prove that Libby knew she was covert or not.


And yes, please go on and tell us a lie he told. You have yet to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FICZGpvOXkQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfGC7XTze1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-6A59qzAU

[BrAinPaiNt]

OK. First you don't look like . A bit like John the Baptist but only because I can picture you in the wilderness eating bugs. Second, That's only 2 reasons because the last thing you said is all in your head. :D

Well...I wish you would tell those that say I do.:D Cause I am way too fat to look like him.:laugh2:

[Cajuncowboy]

I have no way of knowing if it came from him or not. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was from Armitage, Rove, Cheney and Libby. Too bad Libby was the scape goat while the true guy, Armitage, got immunity.



According to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, acting as Attorney General in Ashcroft's place, She was a covert CIA agent at the time. I mention who the person was who came to this conclusion and who appointed him to make sure nobody can scream...liberal leftist activist judges.

Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

He could not charge Libby with outing a CIA agent as he could not prove that Libby knew she was covert or not.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FICZGpvOXkQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfGC7XTze1g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-6A59qzAU

Not one time did he lie in any of those videos. Not one. The Rumsfeld thing was true at the time he said it. He had not tendered his resignation.

As for the Saddam thing we can go round and round again but the truth is that we went to Iraq because he was in violation of the UN sanctions. Pure and simple. He did not disclose to UN inspectors his true capabilities through unfettered access which he was obliged to do due to the surrender agreement at the end of Desert Storm.

As for the Atta thing, everyone knew that the Chech republic intel said that Atta was on the move and we had to take it at face value due to the timing of it and the threats we continued to face.

You can post all the out of context you tube videos you want but you still have proven a single lie.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Not one time did he lie in any of those videos. Not one. The Rumsfeld thing was true at the time he said it. He had not tendered his resignation.

As for the Saddam thing we can go round and round again but the truth is that we went to Iraq because he was in violation of the UN sanctions. Pure and simple. He did not disclose to UN inspectors his true capabilities through unfettered access which he was obliged to do due to the surrender agreement at the end of Desert Storm.

As for the Atta thing, everyone knew that the Chech republic intel said that Atta was on the move and we had to take it at face value due to the timing of it and the threats we continued to face.

You can post all the out of context you tube videos you want but you still have proven a single lie.

He did indeed lie...as did Rumsfield, Cheney and Condi.

That was not taken out of context.

He said they were never stay the course...when that was the mantra for a year or more.

Cheney said he never said something, video proof of his own words say otherwise.

Rumsfield said he never said something, video proof of his own words say otherwise.

Condi said something and later did a 180 turn on it.

So they either lied or flat out refuted what they said prior ...aka flip flopping like John Kerry on crack.

Sorry...I know you will defend them on most of this stuff, but when the truth is right there in their own words with video of them saying it...can of hard to stay in denial.

[Cajuncowboy]

He did indeed lie...as did Rumsfield, Cheney and Condi.

About what? Rumsfeld resigning?



He said they were never stay the course...when that was the mantra for a year or more.

How have they not stayed the course? We are still there are we not?

Cheney said he never said something, video proof of his own words say otherwise.

First this isn't Bush which is the topic of conversation and second What exactally are you referring to?


Sorry...I know you will defend them on most of this stuff, but when the truth is right there in their own words with video of them saying it...can of hard to stay in denial.

IF they lied and you could show me a material lie then fine. So be it. But I have yet to see it. A lie is something you say knowing full well it is not true. It is not saying something one moment and believing it to be true but later finding out it wasn't so and making a contradicting statement.

And by the way, I have never said that Bush and this administration was perfect, but I will tell you that they have had to deal with things that no other President in the history of this country has had to deal with. To castigate an entire administration for acting in the best interest of the Nation in such unfamiliar waters, where there was no guide book is silly.

We are writing the book right now.

[silverbear]

How have they not stayed the course? We are still there are we not?

Don't be obtuse, pal, you know EXACTLY what we're talking about here...

If not, let me lay it out real clearly for you-- Dubya claimed some time back, a claim subsequently repeated by any number of his paid liars, that he had never said that we should "stay the course"... of course he did, repeatedly... he and those some paid liars who then turned around and denied having ever said that...

There is documentary evidence of all of them saying EXACTLY that... which makes the bald-faced liars...

IF they lied and you could show me a material lie then fine. So be it. But I have yet to see it. A lie is something you say knowing full well it is not true. It is not saying something one moment and believing it to be true but later finding out it wasn't so and making a contradicting statement.

Dubya said he'd never said "stay the course", and he had, repeatedly... he said it so many times that it can't possibly be case where he just forgot saying it all those times...

And by the way, I have never said that Bush and this administration was perfect, but I will tell you that they have had to deal with things that no other President in the history of this country has had to deal with. To castigate an entire administration for acting in the best interest of the Nation in such unfamiliar waters, where there was no guide book is silly.

We are writing the book right now.

And doing a profoundly bad job of it... we have accomplished exactly nothing in the war on global terror... the enemy is still out there, stronger than ever, better financed than ever... and that enemy hates us more now than they ever did before, a direct result of us giving them legitimate justification for their hatred, by invading a sovereign Muslim nation with no legitimate reason for having done so... we ARE the Christian Crusader invader they've been anticipating for centuries...

Nice job, Dubya... thank God you only have a few more months to screw my country up even more...

[ConcordCowboy]

You know when I see that Bush STILL to this day has a 23% approval rating or whatever I always say to my wife...who in the hell could STILL be supporting Bush?

And then Cajun posts and it all becomes clear.

[Cajuncowboy]

And doing a profoundly bad job of it... we have accomplished exactly nothing in the war on global terror... the enemy is still out there, stronger than ever, better financed than ever... and that enemy hates us more now than they ever did before, a direct result of us giving them legitimate justification for their hatred, by invading a sovereign Muslim nation with no legitimate reason for having done so... we ARE the Christian Crusader invader they've been anticipating for centuries...

Nice job, Dubya... thank God you only have a few more months to screw my country up even more...

Semantics obviously. Staying the course would mean to not make any changes or adapt to the situation. In that context then he is not lying about saying that. But to say that he lied about what the mission was and not leaving before it was done is insane as we are still there, "Staying the course" and getting the job done.

As for your last assertion, you say we've done NOTHING in the global war on terror. I'm sure I could show you a pile of dead terrorist bodies that if they could talk would tell you different. Not to mention the plots that we have stopped not only in this country but abroad as well.

Oh yeah, have we been attacked on our soil since 9/11? No.

As a matter of fact, Nice Job Dubya! Keep it up for the rest of your turn before some Pansie left winger gets in and screws it up. Those of us who might have been victims of another terrorist attack on this country thank you!

[Cajuncowboy]

You know when I see that Bush STILL to this day has a 23% approval rating or whatever I always say to my wife...who in the hell could STILL be supporting Bush?

And then Cajun posts and it all becomes clear.

And when I see that the democratically controlled Senate have an even lower approval rating than Bush, and ask myself who could still be supporting them, I see a moronic post by Concord and I know who that is.

[ConcordCowboy]

And when I see that the democratically controlled Senate have an even lower approval rating than Bush, and ask myself who could still be supporting them, I see a moronic post by Concord and I know who that is.

Wrong...try again.

The only thing that I would support Congress on is Impeaching Bush.

And you do know that there are Republicans in the Senate....SO the low approval ratings are not just for Democrats.

As I told Burm supporting and defending Bush...then come in here and call people Stupid...or Moronic = Laughable.

[StevenOtero]

Owned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8G4DrwDo1w

"SO PLEASE FORGIVE US FOR NOT BELIEVING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!"
--Tim Ryan

[Cajuncowboy]

Wrong...try again.

The only thing that I would support Congress on is Impeaching Bush.

And you do know that there are Republicans in the Senate....SO the low approval ratings are not just for Democrats.

As I told Burm supporting and defending Bush...then come in here and call people Stupid...or Moronic = Laughable.

Ahh, so now it fits your argument. Right. So what I hear you saying is that you don't support anyone. You are one of those people who thinks they got it all figured out but no one will listen to poor ol' concord. Boo Hoo.

That says a lot about you right there. You run the liberal mantra in EVERY SINGLE POST you type yet, you don't support them. Riiiiight.

What kind of medication does your doctor have you on anyway? And tell him to up the dosage.

[Cajuncowboy]

Owned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8G4DrwDo1w

"SO PLEASE FORGIVE US FOR NOT BELIEVING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!"
--Tim Ryan


:lmao2:

That's good. Was that on Comedy Central?

[StevenOtero]

:lmao2:

That's good. Was that on Comedy Central?No, that was on C-Span.

[Cajuncowboy]

No, that was on C-Span.

Oh, same thing. :D

Come on, you don't really believe this stuff do you?

[ConcordCowboy]

Ahh, so now it fits your argument. Right. So what I hear you saying is that you don't support anyone. You are one of those people who thinks they got it all figured out but no one will listen to poor ol' concord. Boo Hoo.

I support who I think will do what I want. Congress hasn't done what I want...BUT I unlike you can see why...as in they don't have the numbers to override a Presidential Veto. Therefore nothing that they want to accomplish really is going to get done...until...there's a Democratic President OR they get a majority enough to override a Veto.

That says a lot about you right there. You run the liberal mantra in EVERY SINGLE POST you type yet, you don't support them. Riiiiight.


Who said I don't support Liberals?

I didn't...it's you again...with your...if you think this way on one thing you're a Liberal who couldn't possibly think Conservative on another.:rolleyes:

I believe in the Death Penalty is that liberal?:rolleyes:

Now go ahead and re-insert your head back in Bush's Rectum.

[Cajuncowboy]

I support who I think will do what I want. Congress hasn't done what I want...BUT I unlike you can see why...as in they don't have the numbers to override a Presidential Veto. Therefore nothing that they want to accomplish really is going to get done...until...there's a Democratic President OR they get a majority enough to override a Veto.




Who said I don't support Liberals?

I didn't...it's you again...with your...if you think this way on one thing you're a Liberal who couldn't possibly think Conservative on another.:rolleyes:

I believe in the Death Penalty is that liberal?:rolleyes:

Now go ahead and re-insert your head back in Bush's Rectum.

I'm getting tired of seeing you write the same lame rectum thing over and over. You have nothing to bring to the table but this? Keep on babbling because you show what kind of thinker you really are. One with a small mind and an even smaller person.

[ConcordCowboy]

I'm getting tired of seeing you write the same lame rectum thing over and over. You have nothing to bring to the table but this? Keep on babbling because you show what kind of thinker you really are. One with a small mind and an even smaller person.

Get your head out of Bush's RECTUM and I wouldn't have to post it anymore.

Bring what to the table...like you?

Oh the you're a moron/stupid/wuss/Liberal crap that you post all the time. It's really mind expanding.:rolleyes:

There's no changing your mind and I don't care to try.

You're what we call a Lost Cause. Or the 23% that are clueless. Not worth the time or trouble.

[jterrell]

Claiming any President has not lied is counter-intuitive to any intelligent being.

They clearly lie and do so willingly.

Bush has lied a lot. So did Bill Clinton/Papa Bush and even Reagen(guess you could argue Reagen really didn't know he was lying based on his health).

I do not think Jimmy Carter lied but he was also not effective at all. Just not sure you can be President while spouting off all the facts to the whole world.

[ConcordCowboy]

Claiming any President has not lied is counter-intuitive to any intelligent being.

They clearly lie and do so willingly.

Bush has lied a lot. So did Bill Clinton/Papa Bush and even Reagen(guess you could argue Reagen really didn't know he was lying based on his health).

I do not think Jimmy Carter lied but he was also not effective at all. Just not sure you can be President while spouting off all the facts to the whole world.

Yep they all lie at one time or another.

[Cajuncowboy]

Get your head out of Bush's RECTUM and I wouldn't have to post it anymore.

Bring what to the table...like you?

Oh the you're a moron/stupid/wuss/Liberal crap that you post all the time. It's really mind expanding.:rolleyes:

There's no changing your mind and I don't care to try.

You're what we call a Lost Cause. Or the 23% that are clueless. Not worth the time or trouble.

:laugh2:

Keep trying to make sense. One day you may actually achieve it.

[StevenOtero]

Get your head out of Bush's RECTUM and I wouldn't have to post it anymore.

Bring what to the table...like you?

Oh the you're a moron/stupid/wuss/Liberal crap that you post all the time. It's really mind expanding.:rolleyes:

There's no changing your mind and I don't care to try.

You're what we call a Lost Cause. Or the 23% that are clueless. Not worth the time or trouble.:hammer:

[StevenOtero]

Claiming any President has not lied is counter-intuitive to any intelligent being.

They clearly lie and do so willingly.

Bush has lied a lot. So did Bill Clinton/Papa Bush and even Reagen(guess you could argue Reagen really didn't know he was lying based on his health).

I do not think Jimmy Carter lied but he was also not effective at all. Just not sure you can be President while spouting off all the facts to the whole world.Another :hammer:

[ConcordCowboy]

:laugh2:

Keep trying to make sense. One day you may actually achieve it.

Oh it made sense and you got it...you just didn't like it.

[StevenOtero]

Oh it made sense and you got it...you just didn't like it.Exactly. Makes me sick..