Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Former Senator and Intel Committee Chair Bob Graham says his datebooks show the CIA never conducted 3 out of the 4 briefings they claimed to have given him; and never mentioned waterboarding at the other one   ( huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

6997 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 May 2009 at 12:00 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



332 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-05-16 09:04:34 AM  

captain_heroic44:

While I wouldn't call a United States Senator a "loser," the fact is his behavior is definitely obsessive-compulsive in the extreme. Which does nothing to undermine its credibility. In fact, it enhances its credibility.


Backing up your statements enhances your credibility. Period. Bringing anything else into the mix is ad hominem
 
2009-05-16 09:06:15 AM  
OK.

So, this thing seems to be unraveling, and is being picked apart by datebooks?

One of the most powerful and influential intelligence agencies in the world, and they are being undone by spiral notebooks?

And we wonder why we haven't caught Osama Bin Laden...
 
2009-05-16 09:11:20 AM  

DuncanMhor: WillieStokes: Cooler than an Arctic glazier, you are.


Hot!


And I did not until you just pointed it out. Damn, he's good.
 
2009-05-16 09:12:22 AM  

Triaxis: So says the huffingington post? lol


Good thing they don't have an agenda.
 
2009-05-16 09:14:51 AM  

Pocket Ninja: If it turns out that the CIA was deliberately misrepresenting the dates and content of its briefings, there really should be jail time involved for those who perpetrated the lying.

Not that there will be, but there should be.


In when it's proven they are not lying?
 
2009-05-16 09:16:37 AM  

ragekage: Phil Herup: NewportBarGuy: It's never the crime... Always the cover-up.

THIS!

Never thought I'd see myself agreeing with Phil, but... this.

I had to shake my head at RedState once again. Every. Single. Article. on their front page yesterday involved Nancy Pelosi. I mean, FARK. Give me a farking break. I think she's a lameass despicable sack of shiat, but sadly she'll be warming that seat for the rest of forever, even if you ignore the GOP's sorry state for the district she occupies. I'm sure the CIA is engaged in a game of CYA, but Nancy was obviously MIA on the torture DL, and needs to knock off the PCs, STFU and GTFO.

I mean, fark, people! We were lied to! The Bush administration flat-out lied to get us caught up in Iraq! They were bound and determined to do it. Goddamn it, I stood on a street corner in March 2003 proudly supporting the war in a counter protest to anti-war activists. I trusted those lying sacks of shiat. I thought were were engaged in a righteous affair, that we would at least be standing up to people who couldn't stand up for themselves.

And look what this has wrought us.


And what does this has to do with the fact that she knew about waterboarding on al-qeada members?
 
2009-05-16 09:17:40 AM  
i41.tinypic.com

h
 
2009-05-16 09:22:18 AM  
Trusting the veracity of the CIA is foolish. Why would anyone believe an institution that relies on subterfuge?
 
2009-05-16 09:26:12 AM  

FapJack: And what does this has to do with the fact that [Pelosi] knew about waterboarding on al-qeada members?


What does that have to do with anything?

Beyond being yet another right wing red herring.
 
2009-05-16 09:41:48 AM  

thejoyofpi: I kind of love it when senior Congressmen of both parties confirm that the CIA lies to you. Every schizoid hobo in America was right all along.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-05-16 09:42:48 AM  
From the article: Graham declined to speculate as to what took place during Pelosi's briefings, noting that the House and Senate had two entirely different sessions. But he did point out that, at the time, "the whole credibility of the intelligence committee, particularly the CIA, was pretty much in question" -- giving credence to Pelosi's claims that she was given faulty information.

It appears that the DNC astroturfers and sockpuppeteers are out in force today.

Notice that in the farking article states that Graham WASN'T present at the same briefing as Pelosi. He states on those specific dates, there wasn't a briefing that he attended. Seperate briefings, you stupid kneejerk farksticks. You therefore can't compare his recollection to her events.

Pelosi has changed her story several times as to what happened. The CIA was able to refute her first one, so she changed it. What story will she come up with next? She's lying to save her ass. She wanted to jump on board the 'Bush lynching Truth Squad' train, but got burned when it was found out that she approved his policy. She thought she could lie to the American people because she didn't think that the events of this closed door meeting would get out.
 
2009-05-16 09:50:27 AM  

PapermonkeyExpress: From the article: Graham declined to speculate as to what took place during Pelosi's briefings, noting that the House and Senate had two entirely different sessions. But he did point out that, at the time, "the whole credibility of the intelligence committee, particularly the CIA, was pretty much in question" -- giving credence to Pelosi's claims that she was given faulty information.


Notice that in the farking article states that Graham WASN'T present at the same briefing as Pelosi. He states on those specific dates, there wasn't a briefing that he attended. Seperate briefings, you stupid kneejerk farksticks. You therefore can't compare his recollection to her events.

Pelosi has changed her story several times as to what happened.


1) Pelosi's version of events has been consistent throughout: she was briefed that waterboarding had been approved, but not briefed that waterboarding was actually taking place. She has not changed this at all.

2) The claim that Pelosi lied is predicated on the reliability of CIA records indicating that Pelosi was briefed that waterboarding had actually taken place. Graham's records undermine their credibility, and hence, are relevant.
 
2009-05-16 09:50:46 AM  

PapermonkeyExpress:

It appears that the DNC astroturfers and sockpuppeteers are out in force today.

.



english m|_|therf|_|cker, do you speak it?
 
2009-05-16 09:56:25 AM  
scoonthorpe
 
2009-05-16 09:57:02 AM  
what sort of faggy nonsense was that?
 
2009-05-16 10:05:58 AM  
I'm enjoying the [f]right[ened] wing butthurt in this thread, considering the energy they've used in trying to blame Pelosi for the torture and not the actual people that committed the acts. Or those that actually had meetings about it, and signed off on it.

Their only defense now is: the politician kept detailed notes!!??

Look, I know some of you deride the "fact-based community", but here on the Left we have our politicians write memoirs BASED ON FACTS. So it helps to have the facts already ready to go in the first place.

Otherwise, you just end up with revisionist history, which only crazy people cling on to.
 
2009-05-16 10:06:44 AM  

Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: scoonthorpe


See? I TOLD you!!
 
2009-05-16 10:06:53 AM  
>> Former Senator and Intel Committee Chair Bob Graham says his datebooks show the CIA never conducted 3 out of the 4 briefings they claimed to have given him; and never mentioned waterboarding at the other one

Republican denial can deal with all that reality.
 
2009-05-16 10:11:08 AM  

Antonio_Talibanderas: Ya'd kinda think that this sort of info on Graham would come up in the CIA's routine background check for his high level security clearance. The guy logs everything he does. I'd think they'd at least be aware of it - and double check to see that there are no entries like this:


That type of activity is exactly what the ... well the CIA doesn't do the background checks normally. But going by what is included in background checks.

You have to keep a record of damn near everything because you are expected to recite it verbatim on your SF-86.
 
2009-05-16 10:14:23 AM  

Jodeo: The GOP wants nothing more than Nancy Pelosi staying RIGHT where she is. That is, until Jan. 2011.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know.

Just like the GOP was going to do so well in 2008 cause the approval rating of the democratically controlled congress was so low.

After the election it turned out the voters fired even more Repubs and replaced them with Dems.

You repubs just don't get it.

You screwed the pooch so badly that the public will trust just about anyone over you.
 
2009-05-16 10:19:18 AM  

Mentat: This whole mess proves the Republicans still don't get it. They are feeling the heat, so they're trying to drag the Democrats down with them. What they don't understand is that for those of us who oppose torture, we don't care if you take down Pelosi. We have this crazy notion that torture isn't a partisan issue and that everyone responsible should be held to account.


And that is what is going to screw them the most. The right-wingers are so used to auto-defending anyone in their party (unless said person disagrees with Rush) that it confuses the hell out of them that democrats would have zero problem sending Nancy up the river if it was true that she knew and did nothing about it.

Interesting that the right-wingers are trying to make a fuss out of Nancy more than the people who actually authorized the torture. Now why is that......? Why would one party who held the highest offices in the nation for 8 years be so adamant to riot against someone from a lesser position compared to theirs and is also from an opposite party?

But how CAN they get so angry over Nancy? According to them, its not torture, so if its not torture, why get their panties in a twist if she lied or not? Sorry right-wingers, but this is an instance where you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
2009-05-16 10:29:06 AM  
It should be plain to see that Darth Cheney has let HIS people over at CIA run up false flags like this to divert attention away from HIS own criminality and lay it at the feet of his sworn enemies... in this case, he finds Pat Leahy too formitable an opponent so he picks on a woman. Thereby , once again, demonstrating what a farkin COWARD he really is.
 
2009-05-16 10:31:36 AM  
thejoyofpi
I kind of love it when senior Congressmen of both parties confirm that the CIA lies to you. Every schizoid hobo in America was right all along. WAKE UP sheeple!!


Oh why not. It takes away from the fact that Congressmen of both parties lie as a standard rule.


The problem with the news is not all of the stations cover the fact that some of the democratic government officials want to beat Pelosi like a red-headed stepchild.
 
2009-05-16 10:37:42 AM  
Regardless of which side I believe or agree with on a current issue, I know what to expect when I look at Fark comments. If the article referenced is from a conservative source the general consensus is it's all lies and subby is a shill for the republitards. Huffington Post, though...that's some unbiased and insightful journalism.
 
2009-05-16 10:39:20 AM  
Just accept that politicians lie at the drop of a hat.
 
2009-05-16 10:41:24 AM  
This whole article boils down to one statement:

"As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed."

So this is just some CYA from another democrat who was briefed on water boarding.

The Dems never want to take responsibility for anything because it's worked so well for them in the past (and for the repubs too, with their "cut taxes and blame spending on the Dems" strategy, for example.)

The Dems were briefed on it, and even Pelosi admits she knew about it in Feb. 2003 in spite of denying any knowledge later on. She is apparently a serial liar who's already set herself up to blame Obama personally for the budget malfeasance this year when the shiat hits the fan later on. Because the ridiculous spending committments made by the Democrats will be a hot topic in some upcoming election cycles.

I think it was wrong to use these techniques, I've always said so, but the Dems need to come clean and admit that they were included in the process and could have objected. Whenever she found about it, Pelosi didn't object, she stayed silent because it was only a year after 9/11 and she has a backbone made of rubber. She deserves what she is going to get out of this.

These are the same morons, some of them, that were happy to wave the flag in the run-up to the Iraq war in fall 2002, reserving the right to pretend they opposed it or were duped later on.
 
2009-05-16 10:46:04 AM  
www.wouldyoubelieve.com
 
2009-05-16 10:48:27 AM  
Panetta should STFU and find out exactly what happened before he makes any more statements regarding Pelosi. Clearly the CIA screwed in their record keeping with regard to the meetings with Graham or lied about them to Panetta. Given the importance of this issue, a mistake (three actually) is hard to imagine. It calls into question any statements they have made about other meetings during this period. For Panetta not to realize this makes me wonder about his fitness to run the agency.

Just for the record, I am not a fan of Pelosi. If it turns out she knowingly lied, then she should be held accountable and lose her position as speaker .
 
2009-05-16 10:54:36 AM  
You'd think something like this, written confirmation from an unimpeachable third party, would have settled this issue game, set and Match, but then you'd be underestimating the Power of Partisan Thinking:

-Graham is lying because he's a politician and politicians always lie! (and the CIA is noted as bastion of veracity?)

-Graham is lying to save a fellow Democrat (ignoring the fact the CIA admitted he was right and they were wrong)

-Graham's story can be discarded because it is weird that he writes everything down (teacher's take note: a purer example of argument ad hominem you'll never find in the wild)

-Since Graham writes everything down and he wasn't allowed to take notes of the briefing his recollection can't be trusted (never mind that he was a legendary member of the Senate Intel committee for a VERY long time and noted as being on top of his game)

-and My personal favorite "all that means is that Graham couldn't be bothered to attend to the other briefings-meaning he was a lazy and disinterested Intel Committee Chief" (Even though the CIA itself confirmed THE BREIFINGS NEVER HAPPENED)
 
2009-05-16 10:58:28 AM  

Cuzweedoles: Regardless of which side I believe or agree with on a current issue, I know what to expect when I look at Fark comments. If the article referenced is from a conservative source the general consensus is it's all lies and subby is a shill for the republitards. Huffington Post, though...that's some unbiased and insightful journalism.


THIS!
 
2009-05-16 10:58:47 AM  
Oh those poor poor terrorists. Let's spend a lot of time and money tearing the government apart trying to help them.
 
2009-05-16 11:01:00 AM  

NeverDrunk23:

But how CAN they get so angry over Nancy? According to them, its not torture, so if its not torture, why get their panties in a twist if she lied or not? Sorry right-wingers, but this is an instance where you can't have your cake and eat it too.


They get angry about Nancy because

A) It is a useful distraction to keep people from focusing on the real issue of accountability (if Nancy knew then ever horrible thing Bush and Cheney did is retroactively okay somehow)

B) She's a Democrat: no other explanation needed, she plays for the other team so it's fair game to cripple her by any means necessary

and most importantly:

C) She's a woman in a position of power: and as their rabid hatred of HRC over the years has proved, any strong woman in a position of authority either becomes a lust object for them if she's on their side(Aka Condi or Margaret Thatcher) or and Object of unreasoning, rabid hatred if they oppose her
 
2009-05-16 11:01:01 AM  

Hollerin Charlie: Reality check - if you had videotapes and photos taken during the interrogation that showed everything you did, and you assert that you did nothing illegal, then why on earth would you burn all of the copies of said tapes that should exonerate you?

This is enough for me to know that the CIA farked up and that they know it well. You don't try to cover up nothing. You don't try to deflect blame for something noble and kind you did onto a political enemy.

I'm just glad the administration didn't decide to stage another "terror attack" to convince us that Arabs are scary enough for us to abandon our common sense.

Really, that's the only way these war criminals CAN get away with this. If you only used transcripts of Cheney's talk show punditry over the past ten years, you could indict him in any state. He may still get off if that's all you got, but it's enough to get a grand jury seated and start the ball moving so we can get the warrants we need to search certain man-sized safes.

Sorry, Charlie! You do NOT get to hide behind your office when the only thing you did there was to abuse it for personal gain.

I may just have a couple of lawyer friends of mine draft an "opinion" that when international war criminals are being sheltered by a rogue state, it is acceptable to waterboard their family members and friends on television every night until they step forward to save their loved ones from "not torture".

You know, I don't blame the Arabs for trying to kill us - they are insane zealots who believe whatever their leaders tell them. But Americans are supposed to be better than that/ If my CO told me to "enhance" my interrogation techniques, I would tell him to eat a bag of dicks.

It's OK to kill them on the field, but once you have them at your mercy, there are rules. Rules we created to save American servicemen from what McCain had to endure.

How is this a political issue? It is a crime. The Nuremberg defense is invalid here as everywhere else, and soldiers are trained to refuse illegal orders from their immediate superiors and report it up the chain.

If you were a "good soldier" and "followed orders" Obama doesn't want to prosecute you - I do. Because your failure to uphold international treaties during wartime doesn't stop being a crime just because your opponent "wants to kill you".

The only reason to use the old Soviet techniques is to elicit false confessions and that's just what Cheney wanted - for some Curveball to cough up a story about how he had tea with Saddam Hussein a year ago.

The only way to move forward is to punish the guilty. If you do not prosecute these crimes, what is to prevent Obama from doing exactly the same thing to you?


I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2009-05-16 11:01:16 AM  
The CIA are the scum of the earth. One look at their record and there is no denying that. But they are good at waving a flag and thats the only thing thats important to corporate media and some americans so they are given a pass.

Even serious blowback from farked up black ops (like the Iran hostage crisis which was blowback from Operation Ajax) has no effect on the CIA's suckups.
 
2009-05-16 11:01:30 AM  

Magorn: You'd think something like this, written confirmation from an unimpeachable third party, would have settled this issue game, set and Match, but then you'd be underestimating the Power of Partisan Thinking:


That's pretty dumb. You consider another Democrat who was on the senate intelligence committee to be an "unimpeachable third party"???? He's covering HIS ASS, along with hers.

What are you, a congressional staffer for one of the Dems?

Pelosi admitted she heard about water boarding from other Dems in Feb. 2003. Before, in at least one interview, she said they were never told. What more do you need to know, she's a liar out of her own mouth. You don't even need to confirm her lie about the CIA briefing, she's already admitting to being a liar so how can you trust her word about the briefing?
 
2009-05-16 11:07:02 AM  

Magorn:

A) It is a useful distraction to keep people from focusing on the real issue of accountability (if Nancy knew then ever horrible thing Bush and Cheney did is retroactively okay somehow)

B) She's a Democrat: no other explanation needed, she plays for the other team so it's fair game to cripple her by any means necessaryand most importantly:

C) She's a woman in a position of power: and as their rabid hatred of HRC over the years has proved, any strong woman in a position of authority either becomes a lust object for them if she's on their side(Aka Condi or Margaret Thatcher) or and Object of unreasoning, rabid hatred if they oppose her



Really? It is actually just The Speaker of The House called the C.I.A. a bunch of liars to protect her own personal polotical reputaion, that she alone decided to wreck. That is all it is.

You can't have the 3rd in line to the Presidency making statements like she did.
 
2009-05-16 11:10:13 AM  

Bob16: The CIA are the scum of the earth.



They are worse than the Taliban... al Quaeda.... The Tamil Tigers... (insert random murderous terrroist group here or dictator)?
 
2009-05-16 11:14:37 AM  

Phil Herup: Magorn:

A) It is a useful distraction to keep people from focusing on the real issue of accountability (if Nancy knew then ever horrible thing Bush and Cheney did is retroactively okay somehow)

B) She's a Democrat: no other explanation needed, she plays for the other team so it's fair game to cripple her by any means necessaryand most importantly:

C) She's a woman in a position of power: and as their rabid hatred of HRC over the years has proved, any strong woman in a position of authority either becomes a lust object for them if she's on their side(Aka Condi or Margaret Thatcher) or and Object of unreasoning, rabid hatred if they oppose her


Really? It is actually just The Speaker of The House called the C.I.A. a bunch of liars to protect her own personal polotical reputaion, that she alone decided to wreck. That is all it is.

You can't have the 3rd in line to the Presidency making statements like she did.


dude, lying is the whole point of the CIA, that's their job, that's what they do.

she might as well be saying that water is wet, so why all the whining about it?
 
2009-05-16 11:14:51 AM  
Bob Graham rules. He takes notes about everything, all the time. And he called out the Bush administration for being lying swine BEFORE the war.

The CIA cannot be trusted anywhere NEAR as much as Bob.
 
2009-05-16 11:19:04 AM  

Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: dude, lying is the whole point of the CIA, that's their job, that's what they do.



Did you see "Burn After Reading"?


good back room CIA stuff in that.


tbn1.google.com
 
2009-05-16 11:19:56 AM  

Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: dude, lying is the whole point of the CIA, that's their job, that's what they do.


I don't get it cons.

I thought government couldn't do anything right. Now all of a sudden a part of the government that is in a fight with a Dem is getting it right according to you.

Isn't that convenient.
 
2009-05-16 11:20:12 AM  

STRYPERSWINE: America-hating gibberish redacted


These Republicans are why we have Democrats running the country. Keep it up, good job!
 
2009-05-16 11:20:15 AM  

Phil Herup: Bob16: The CIA are the scum of the earth.


They are worse than responsible for the Taliban... al Quaeda.... (insert random murderous terrroist group here or dictator)?

 
2009-05-16 11:22:14 AM  

Phil Herup: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: dude, lying is the whole point of the CIA, that's their job, that's what they do.


Did you see "Burn After Reading"?


good back room CIA stuff in that.


through the whole movie, the cia lied and connived for no reason at all.
 
2009-05-16 11:22:29 AM  
I just came in to see the complete evisceration and pwnage of feckingmorons. I can now leave satisfied.

Well done all.
 
2009-05-16 11:24:38 AM  

Animatronik: Magorn: You'd think something like this, written confirmation from an unimpeachable third party, would have settled this issue game, set and Match, but then you'd be underestimating the Power of Partisan Thinking:

That's pretty dumb. You consider another Democrat who was on the senate intelligence committee to be an "unimpeachable third party"???? He's covering HIS ASS, along with hers.

What are you, a congressional staffer for one of the Dems?

Pelosi admitted she heard about water boarding from other Dems in Feb. 2003. Before, in at least one interview, she said they were never told. What more do you need to know, she's a liar out of her own mouth. You don't even need to confirm her lie about the CIA briefing, she's already admitting to being a liar so how can you trust her word about the briefing?


A) he's a retired, and somewhat conservative Democrat

B) HE HAS WRITTEN PROOF: HAND-written Proof, in the form of datebooks in the possession of a third party (U-Fla) in which he obsessively recorded ever detail of his life for the last twenty years.

C) THE CIA ITSELF has acknowledged that his version of events is correct an theirs was a lie.

Ergo, when evaluating the relative credibility of the witnesses, we have one who has been accused by partisan hacks of being a liar, and an agency that has ACKNOWLEDGED that it lied after being confronted with written proof.

Now if you are capable of reading the above and concluding that the CIA still has more credibility on the matter than you are the sort of narrow-minded unreasoning idiot I try to get struck from juries because they believe that cops never lie and that if you are arrested you must be guilty of something
 
2009-05-16 11:25:25 AM  

Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: They are worse than responsible for the Taliban... al Quaeda....



Not really. Their murderous ways and hate goes back eons.
 
2009-05-16 11:28:24 AM  
Well no Bob was not briefed those other times. He was invited to briefings that did occur. And sometimes (just like Pelosi said happened in Feb '03) one of his aides attended the briefings.

Now why is Porter Goss not being asked for his notes?
 
2009-05-16 11:32:18 AM  

Phil Herup: Nothing Sweeter Than Redneck Tears: They are worse than responsible for the Taliban... al Quaeda....


Not really. Their murderous ways and hate goes back eons.


you can say that of the whole human race. really doesnt address the point.
 
2009-05-16 11:36:57 AM  

Pocket Ninja: If it turns out that the CIA was deliberately misrepresenting the dates and content of its briefings, there really should be jail time involved for those who perpetrated the lying.

Not that there will be, but there should be.


This. The CIA is incompetent as all get out. Tim Weiner, Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla wrote books on the CIA's mile long list of fark-ups and idiocy years ago. It's about time people got a good, hard look in what is the epitome of self-serving, bureaucratic agencies.
 
Displayed 50 of 332 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report