your government is broken. Nonetheless, there are levels of brokenness.

It means that neither party can be trusted to uphold the Constitution or otherwise do the right thing. So, what to do? Go to a third party, or clean out the Democratic party and start over? The former isn't viable - but, of course, neither is the latter.

At least if the Democrats were being democrats, we wouldn't be in quite the mess we're in.

... to the argument that, at the time, there simply was no allowance for anyone, much less a politician, to express anything but hyper-patriotic sentiments. I remember feeling like I had to bite my tongue a few times for pragmatic reasons. (They hate us for our freedoms?)

I agree though, they should explain their actions then, why it took so long for this to come out, and why they shouldn't be keel-hauled for having stood idly by.

Then impeach the Preznit.

can understand the pressure at the time but not the continuation of silence and complcity.

they haven't figured out yet how to explain/justify their previous silence and complicity. A flip flop on any issue is never highly regarded even if the new position is a laudable one.

that they have to work so hard to come up with excuses? I swear there is a special excuses department we just don't know about yet. lol

Let's find a proper name for it. How about: "The Department of Regrettable But Politically Necessary Flip Flops", or another convoluted one, "The Department of No Longer Acceptable Former Positions".

I'm sure you can come up with better ones. :D

with The office of Political Expediency, but I really like your Department of No Longer Acceptable Former Positions"

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) took Pelosi's spot on the committee in 2003. It was only then that the administration told the committee chiefs that the techniques listed in the 2002 briefing "were actually being used." Harman, and not Pelosi, was briefed at the time. "Harman objected, which Pelosi thought was the right thing to do and would have done if she had been ranker," the aide says. Pelosi, however, did not sign her name to a letter Harman sent to the CIA that Harman sent that February after receiving the briefing. Harman has asked the CIA to declassify the letter, which she has described as expressing concern over the interrogation techniques put into place and warning the CIA against destroying any interrogation recordings. "Harman told her she was sending it and Pelosi agreed with that decision," the Pelosi aide says.

"Pelosi and Harman [are] on same page on this," the aide adds, contradicting my earlier read on Pelosi's statement.

So why was Pelosi quiet once she rotated in?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004869.php

Harman: CIA brushed off warnings on interrogation tapes

del.icio.us del.icio.us

Print This Email This

Rep. Jane Harman, the California Democrat who warned the CIA in 2003 against destroying tapes of its agents using so-called harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists, now says the agency brushed off her concerns over the tapes' preservation with a curt, "very unsatisfactory" response.

Whether the former ranking member of the Intelligence Committee pushed for more information on the interrorgation methods that sparked her initial concern remains an open question. Democrats are accusing the CIA of keeping them in the dark about plans to destroy videotapes, and Harman acknowledges that her memory is fuzzy regarding a classified briefing she participated in just after taking over for Nancy Pelosi as top Democrat on the committee.

"I can't really reconstruct the meeting -- again, which was highly classified -- because I took no notes. It was five years ago and this feeble grandma just ain't that good," Harman told NPR's Robert Siegel Monday.

In February 2003, Harman wrote to the CIA and urged them to preserve the tapes, which were destroyed in 2005.

It wasn't until the destruction of the tapes was publicly revealed last week that Harman disclosed her earlier warnings to the CIA. On Friday, Harman said the CIA "never responded to" her 2003 letter, although she modified that accusation Monday.

"I did hear over the weekend from a staffer that she thinks there was a response, very unsatisfactory, to my letter, and I'm eager to see if the CIA recognized then that what I said was important," Harman said on CNN's American Morning Monday. "They obviously ignored it in 2005."

more with links and video

that's not the case. Even at that time, white shoe law firms, the most prestigious in New York, were lining up to represent Guantanmo Bay "terrorists". They would have had the very best representation in the country.

And Pelosi was minority leader at the time. It is not clear to me that she could not have held enough members to avoid a 2/3 majority.

Even if she had, so what? What good have the Dems done inside?

Yeah, every step of the way, there was someone willing to make excuses about why now wasn't the time to fight.

There still are.

...were expressly threatened by an admin employee (who lost his job over it, but only because he was too explicit).

Pelosi probably would have had the sympathy of the 147 Ds who voted against authorization. I doubt she would have gotten 60 votes. Not in 2002.

What good have the Dems done inside?

Are you seriously suggesting that we'd be no worse off if the R's had won the 2006 election?

...to CIA DO Chief Hung Out To Dry?.

Rodriguez was the one devising the interrogation techniques at the Counterterrorism Center - the exact stuff they were getting "briefed" about. Goss was House Committee chair throughout this period. Goss gets tapped to head the CIA, and brings Rodriguez in to be DO chief.

(And StopTheACLUBlog is giggling with glee that an admin leak has embarassed the Dems.)

I ask again... when were the CIA tapes destroyed?
Larisa Alexandrovna

We are told that the CIA tapes were destroyed in 2005. Now, what tapes are these DOJ lawyers examining in September and October of 2007? Please take a look at this memo, HERE, do you see anything that says that the tapes were a). destroyed and b). in 2005?

I am sure someone has a logical answer to this. I am, unfortunately, not that person. Anyone?

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/12/i-ask-again-whe.html

eom

if the dems continue to lay down they will be knocked out of the elections next year. Every time the dems reach forward they will be blackmailed, pressured or whatever with the idea of releasing more embarassing info. There will just continue to be hit pieces, there always will be for both sides. It is time to clean house and let the chips fall.

the American public, which seems quite well aware that there's little to vote for, doesn't become confused by increasing volumes of inky chaff about which party is the most important to vote out.

something to be concerned about which is why I think having someone or few stand up and start speaking out is important. The dems will lose some top leaders but it will be worth it to permanently cripple the republicans in office and expose their actions. Although I love the idea of starting a new political party: Americans for America :)