View Full Version : Another Bush CoverUp Exposed
It appears that "someone" got briefed by the White House. Just not who they say got briefed, that's all.
In statements to the press this week, President Bush and White House press secretary Dana Perino claimed that members of Congress had been “fully briefed” on a classified CIA program that sanctioned the use of harsh interrogation techniques. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller disputed this claim on Friday. This morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that she too was not briefed on the secret memos.
At a town hall meeting with the Democratic Club of Westside Progressives in Los Angeles yesterday afternoon, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was asked about her knowledge of the secret “torture memos” revealed this week by the New York Times. Like Rockefeller and Pelosi, Harman said she was not “fully briefed”:
We were not fully briefed. We were told about operational details but not these memos. Jay Rockefeller said the same thing, and I associate myself with his remarks. And we want to see these memos.
At the time of the secret approval to the CIA in 2005, Rep. Harman was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the “Gang of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.
At the same town hall meeting, Harman revealed that an unidentified Republican member of Congress told her that if President Bush were to attack Iran, then even he would vote for impeachment.
~link~ (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/07/harman-not-fully-briefed/)
ViolaLee
10-08-2007, 07:01 PM
The whole Bush admin scenerio is secret and covered up and deleted and shredded. They do illegal things and then they destroy the evidence. This is how the Republicans think the USA should be run. Like the USSR apparently.
BoogyMan
10-08-2007, 07:09 PM
This whole line of argumentation and accusation is based on the say so of those democrats who claim they were not "fully briefed."
Hmmm, it seems to me we are dealing with politicians here and you know what happens whenever a politicians lips are moving.
ViolaLee
10-08-2007, 07:13 PM
Do you deny that the Bush admin has deleted emails, refused to hand over documents requested by congress, had closed door meetings and denied the public's right to see the list of attendees and refused to allow people who were subpoenaed to testify?
Come on boogy, you have to admit this is the most secretive government of our lifetimes.
BoogyMan
10-08-2007, 07:23 PM
I will grant you the government under Bush is certainly secretive, but you are going to have to bring MUCH more than another ThinkProgress article written to an audience that won't question it.
I will grant you the government under Bush is certainly secretive, but you are going to have to bring MUCH more than another ThinkProgress article written to an audience that won't question it.
Classic Shoot The Messenger post courtesy our resident partisan neocon.
Senator Rockefeller claims he gets more information from The NYT article about spying than he ever got from the WH and now Rep Harman is saying that the WH never briefed her. Where is your article or citation that says she WAS briefed and where she says so? Lacking that, you are just Shooting The Messenger. Again.
BoogyMan
10-08-2007, 07:48 PM
Where is the proof that she wasn't briefed ECW, my proof is as strong as yours. As far as this discussion goes you are doing the same thing by parroting the claim that they were not "fully" briefed when the administration claims they were.
This is a bit silly.
History is not on your side. If Senators Nelson and Rockefeller AND Rep Jane Harman all claim that they were not fully briefed on these matters despite the WH saying they were, I see a clear pattern there of the WH trying to hide their real intentions. Combine that with the WH refusal to hand over to the Intelligence Committee the relevant papers to back up their side of the story and you have a cover up.
AnnEsthesia
10-08-2007, 08:03 PM
So Boogy, if someone says they were NOT briefed, you do not consider it proof and feel you do not need to prove they were briefed? Really? So now you will only accept the word of the administration over everyone else?
BoogyMan
10-08-2007, 08:08 PM
So Boogy, if someone says they were NOT briefed, you do not consider it proof and feel you do not need to prove they were briefed? Really? So now you will only accept the word of the administration over everyone else?
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that neither side is more credible than the other in the absence of anything other that someones say-so.
We ARE talking about politicians here.
Scorpion
10-08-2007, 08:14 PM
So where is the coverup? I don't see a coverup. Just a bunch of Democrats upset that they weren't privey to a confidential memo. No coverup there. And this story is about as partisan as they get.
AnnEsthesia
10-08-2007, 08:14 PM
Show me the past shady history of the senators. I am sure we already have threads full of the shady history of the administration. I find it sad that you would believe the administration before the senators. Bush has been proven to lie about facts. Why would now be any different?
NDNdancer
10-08-2007, 10:53 PM
Just a bunch of Democrats upset that they weren't privey to a confidential memo.
Hardly just a bunch of Democrats, they were members of Congress who sat on the Intelligence committees and they WERE NOT "fully" briefed.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller disputed this claim on Friday.
At the time of the secret approval to the CIA in 2005, Rep. Harman was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the “Gang of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.
They have requested those two memos and thus far have not been provided the memos. If the WH has "fully" briefed members of Congress, why don't those in Congress who were "fully" briefed step forward to verify the claim?
Just a bunch of Democrats upset that they weren't privey to a confidential memo.
Hardly just a bunch of Democrats, they were members of Congress who sat on the Intelligence committees and they WERE NOT "fully" briefed.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller disputed this claim on Friday.
At the time of the secret approval to the CIA in 2005, Rep. Harman was the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the “Gang of Eight” routinely briefed on intelligence matters.
They have requested those two memos and thus far have not been provided the memos. If the WH has "fully" briefed members of Congress, why don't those in Congress who were "fully" briefed step forward to verify the claim?
Does it really make a difference at this point? The Dems are spineless wimps so why shouldn't Bush take every opportunity to thumb his nose at them?
Scorpion
10-08-2007, 11:58 PM
The senate feels it hasn't been fully informed so of course the Bush Administration is once again accused of engaging in conspiratorial conduct. This sort of "Chicken Little" mentality is getting tiresome, especially from the functionally ineffective left.
throowrocks
10-09-2007, 12:09 AM
I would gladly supply the water (freshly pee-ed in) for the waterboarding procedure. These procedures accomplish 2 tasks. 1.#Loosens their tongue 2.#Washes the filth of the filth!
Please stay on topic. There are threads already discussing torture.
Scorpion
10-09-2007, 04:24 AM
I would gladly supply the water (freshly pee-ed in) for the waterboarding procedure. These procedures accomplish 2 tasks. 1.#Loosens their tongue 2.#Washes the filth of the filth!
So you approve of the use of torture to extract information?
Does it really make a difference at this point? The Dems are spineless wimps so why shouldn't Bush take every opportunity to thumb his nose at them?
So by your reasoning it's a na-nana-na-na :nana: situation?
What would these people gain from saying they weren't fully briefed?
Why would they be demanding something they already saw?
I'm not sure how these things work.......but if this is some sort of document that they were supposed to have read, I would think that there would be some kind of record of them attending a meeting, or at least their initials on the document in question.........so if they actually read it........said they didn't......then there would be proof that they were lying.
Does it really make a difference at this point? The Dems are spineless wimps so why shouldn't Bush take every opportunity to thumb his nose at them?
So by your reasoning it's a na-nana-na-na :nana: situation?
What would these people gain from saying they weren't fully briefed?
Why would they be demanding something they already saw?
I'm not sure how these things work.......but if this is some sort of document that they were supposed to have read, I would think that there would be some kind of record of them attending a meeting, or at least their initials on the document in question.........so if they actually read it........said they didn't......then there would be proof that they were lying.
With Bush it's possible that it is a nya-nya sort of thing. He treats them as though they're of no consequence, and they don't do much to show that they are.
The point I was trying to get across is, what would they have done if they had seen the memo, threaten to hold their breath? :unreal:
Cheers
Lazarus
10-09-2007, 05:08 AM
This seems to boil down to each sides definition of " fully ".
However, I would not put it past BushCo to provide only an outline of these programs.
And then when the dirty specifics are dragged out into the sunlight, he or his minions cry that " we fully briefed you on this, and you didn't raise objections at the time.
ViolaLee
10-09-2007, 05:14 AM
Some people complain the Dems aren't doing enough to get the Bush admin to hand over the appropriate documents (in many cases).
Some people complain that the Dems are complaining too much about the Bush admin not handing over the appropriate documents (in many cases).
One or the other people....most of this complaining is coming from Republicans, so which is it? Or is it just that no matter what the Dems do or don't do, you'll complain about what they did or didn't do?
Trish
10-09-2007, 05:23 AM
[
What would these people gain from saying they weren't fully briefed?
Why would they be demanding something they already saw?
I'm not sure how these things work.......but if this is some sort of document that they were supposed to have read, I would think that there would be some kind of record of them attending a meeting, or at least their initials on the document in question.........so if they actually read it........said they didn't......then there would be proof that they were lying.
How about a Democrat in the White House in 2008? How about plausible deniability? Another accusation against Bush/Republicans to assure a Democrat win in 2008 is a powerful motivator. As to a politican denying things....Anyone remember Nixon's "I am not a crook!" or Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" :D
Politicians - on all sides, with very, VERY few exceptions, do not have prayer books for mouths!
Lazarus
10-09-2007, 05:29 AM
Some people complain the Dems aren't doing enough to get the Bush admin to hand over the appropriate documents (in many cases).
Some people complain that the Dems are complaining too much about the Bush admin not handing over the appropriate documents (in many cases).
One or the other people....most of this complaining is coming from Republicans, so which is it? Or is it just that no matter what the Dems do or don't do, you'll complain about what they did or didn't do?
Well, I am not a reprobate, but I do wish that the Dems would choose a course of action and stick with it - come Hell or high water.
They all seem to talk tough but then fail to back it up.
I will never criticize the Dems for a sustained challenge to George Jr.
This " bird in the bush being better than two birds in their hands " routine is getting old.
Choose one of his great many f* ups and pursue it - that is all I ask of the Democrats.
Until they do, they deserve all the derision.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.