Reply #12: Some notes on the WaPo article

[mogster]

There are some trends in this article that needs to be commented.

The use of anonymous quotes:

""Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said."

""The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange."

"the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge."

""In fairness, the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic," said one U.S. official present during the early briefings. "But there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'"

In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings. That decision reflected the White House's decision that the "enhanced interrogation" program would be treated as one of the nation's top secrets for fear of warning al-Qaeda members about what they might expect, said U.S. officials familiar with the decision.

It's 'some people say' revisited. And the Republicans -- which are after all responsible for setting in motion this program, and responsible as a party for carrying out the human rights disaster called the 'war on terror' -- comes out as heroes, while Democrats comes out as the bad guys.
Nancy Pelosi is the main subject, the rest are just sketches. Watch the bias go down:

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort.
The distance to the Bush administration by congressional repubs is marked up and delivered.

The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.
The advise of Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove-Dick-Cheney-Bush was to preserve incriminating evidence for the history? Gimme a break.

"The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). "

a "Gang of Eight," including the four top congressional leaders of both parties as well as the four senior intelligence committee members. In this case, most briefings about detainee programs were limited to the "Gang of Four," the top Republican and Democrat on the two committees. A few staff members were permitted to attend some of the briefings.

It's the gangs, folks. But what about the gang in the White House? The Democrats are the top line offenders here while the Republicans (of which one is a former CIA head and Director of Natnl. Intelligence), well they seem like the GOOD guys, you know. It's like they're the whistleblowers, no? The human rights defenders, Amnesty sponsors and what have you. One can tell from the article's tone and substance that whatever the Republicans does, it's not the issue here. Porter Goss get's to say what he wants, and tells the story: "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.""
Says Porter Goss.

"Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq."
For the first time in post-2000 history the Washington Post plays the Nazi card, despite seven years of a Bush regime that's looking more and more like the Nazis every day. No surprise they saved it for an occation where there were Democrats involved. Try using the description on the prez next, WP.

"Graham said he has no memory of ever being told about waterboarding or other harsh tactics. Graham left the Senate intelligence committee in January 2003, and was replaced by Rockefeller. "Personally, I was unaware of it, so I couldn't object," Graham said in an interview. He said he now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal.

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

Another anonymous source to verify Pelosis position. Graham said he was unaware, yet WP says he now believes the torture was illegal. Roberts declinde to comment, so does Rockefeller. Harman blames the strict rules of secrecy. But McCain, oh dear. He's introduced as a war prisoner -- which builds his cred as a whistleblower on prisoner related matters -- and are made out to be one:

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Vietnam War prisoner who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, took an early interest in the program even though he was not a member of the intelligence committee, and spoke out against waterboarding in private conversations with White House officials in late 2005 before denouncing it publicly."

The story is mostly built by anonymous quotes, or by statements from Republicans.
It uses the White House as some sort of character witness on human rights issues.
It is portraying the Republicans as whistleblowers and innocent bystanders, while the situation at hand is a pure blood fascist Republican project, from first to last.
They started the 'war on terror'.
They set the rules for how it would be fought, rough handed and cruel.

I'm not defending any person knowing what went on, whichever party affiliation he or she may have.
But right must be right; this article is strongly biased, and so is the whole story.
The usual story is that the Republicans are off the hook, while the Democrats gets the blame - party wise.
That's just wrong.