Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

High Crimes

by The Reverend on December 19, 2007

in Bush White House,executive powers,torture

Of course the White House knew about the CIA's torture tapes. The White House, ultimately, ordered the destruction of those tapes. How silly to think otherwise.

At least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency between 2003 and 2005 about whether to destroy videotapes showing the secret interrogations of two operatives from Al Qaeda, according to current and former administration and intelligence officials.

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex. In interviews, several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed.

One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal.
Link

Gee, I wonder who the "some top White House officials" who wanted to "destroy the tapes" were? The Times source, you know, couldn't specify which White House persons "took this position" but is there any question it included Addington and Cheney?

White House crimes so out in the open…..yet no one cares, or at least it seems. And there's really no doubt, is there, that NO ONE will be held accountable or even be reprimanded for these very obviously criminal acts? It's amazing to behold.

For eight years the GOP inspired mainstream media made mountains out of every molehill with Bill Clinton. No sin of omission or commission was left off the watchdog radar screen. Now, nothing is on their screens. Nothing rises to a level of criminality with these folks. Like I said, it's amazing to behold.

Is there any doubt, if a Democrat takes the presidency next November….that these same silent-about-Bush-crimes people will miraculously find their voices again? The same GOP representatives and the same screeching heads from the right who haven't witnessed one Bush/Cheney White House wrongdoing during their entire 7 year reign of terror over America will be calling for the impeachment of Hillary Clinton just as quickly as they can find a "high crime". Like….. she doesn't eat all her broccoli.

  • http://real-sports-news.info/high-crimes High Crimes | ok

    [...] Original post by The Reverend [...]

  • larry d.

    It always strikes me as odd when you use a published media story to prove that no one is covering the high crimes of our current President. What could be more high profile than a New York Times piece?

  • The Reverend

    larry: Tell me truly here. Do you think that a) most Americans receive their news understanding from teevee or b) from the NY Times?

    I can imagine a lot of stuff…but all those Christians on the right sitting around and perusing the Times….for some reason, I'm not seeing it.

    While this dynamic is going on. The extreme right Mighty Wurlitzer echo chamber, naturally, does it's part to not only suffocate a story like the one the Times published, but the way the story is suffocated always reflects the same M.O. Watch for it again this time. Ridicule and villify those in and around the story, repeatedly label those same people as "haters of Americans", etc. Then, if necessary, spin out the "evil twin" dual narrative to give something to their minions to cling on to in defense of their horribly corrupt Leaders treasonous behavior.

    But they're protecting us. Jesus.

  • larry d.

    You have a point, Reverend. Most media outlets are too lazy to pick up anything more complicated than Jessica Simpson's attraction to Tony Romo.

    And I like the way you ridicule and villify the right wingers for their ridiculing and villifying ways.

  • Jerry

    The Reverend is correct, it does not seem to matter what is printed in the New York Times…or anywhere else. Nothing seems stick as a crime anymore if it is committed by our national leaders… unless, of course, it is an extramarital or gay affair. That is why I did not understand why Cheney went after Wilson and Plame. I am guessing that only 1 in 125,000 Americans (if that) read Joe Wilson's editorial and many of them would have forgetten the article in short time if Cheney did not leak Plame's identity in revenge. The destruction of the CIA tapes is just the latest example of this administration's disregard for the law. I have no doubts that this will be passed over very quickly by mainstream media, if it is even touched upon at all. Maybe there are just too many scandals to keep up with? It seems that there is a new one every week! But I put most of the blame on the people of this country, not the media, for not caring and being stupid. Everyone knew in 2004 that this administration was rotten to the core, but the majority voted for them anyhow.

  • larry d.

    I must have missed that NYTimes piece exposing Cheney as the leak. Or the one that showed how the Bush administration ordered the CIA tapes destroyed. Just goes to show, I guess.

  • The Reverend

    Goes to show….what, exactly?

  • larry d.

    That either:

    -you two are right and the NYTimes is not reporting stories that would make careers and boost circulation

    or

    -you two are crackpots who won't be happy until the NYTimes starts slandering the administration by printing your unsubstantiated kook theories.

  • Da King

    Ouch ! That had to hurt. Right between the eyes.

  • The Reverend

    Either/or, you know, like "you are either with us or the terrorists" are great distractive methods in communicating.

    And that's all they are.

    Yes, writers and publishers are seeking to advance their careers. Boosting circulation? Not in the digital age.

    But then, with your either/or false dichotomy, you say crackpots like me, won't be happy until Bush's Boys are "slandered" properly with "unsubstantiated kook theories".

    You mean like the "kook theory" that Iraq was a threat to America?

    Oh, no…the Times actually helped that "kook theory" along while advancing the career of Judy Miller, didn't they? So that "kook theory" must not have been one you were including, huh?

    larry, I don't know how it came to be. When was it, or do you even know, that you started to reject truth, replacing it with a faith-based neo-conservative view of reality? You're not alone here. Probably 25% of Americans were hynotized by the fear and the lies. Slowly, many millions have snapped out of it. Others? Maybe they'll stay under permanently.

    If you think this White House didn't give the go ahead to destroy those torture tapes, then all that you're telling us is that you are still under hynosis. Snap out of it.

  • larry d.

    Talk about distractive methods of communicating!

    How is doubting that the NYTimes would sit on a story like that 'faith-based?'

  • The Reverend

    It is because you have nothing to base your viewpoint on. The Times held the story back at the request of the White House for ONE FULL YEAR…2004. Consult the Google. If you doubt that they did….it must be because you are basing your understanding on…..faith. The facts show that they did hold it back. Your biased understanding of the Times and media in general, because you are not one of those, you know, kooks, is that the Times is liberal and wouldn't obstruct the flow of information for the sake of a Republican president.

    And that's why it's faith based. You come to the table without any facts…..just your faith that what I said is incorrect.

  • larry d.

    Consult the Google?

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).