http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/18/torture/index.html

While the noise machine debates what Pelosi knew about torture, here are the architects of the policy that should be investigated.


1. Dick Cheney, vice president (2001-2009)
2. David Addington, counsel to the vice president (2001-2005), chief of staff to the vice president (2005-2009)
3. Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel (2001-2005), and attorney general (2005-2008)
4. James Mitchell, consultant
5. George Tenet, director of Central Intelligence (1997-2004)
6. Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor (2001-2005), secretary of state (2005-2008)
7. John Yoo, deputy assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel (2001-2003)
8. Jay Bybee, assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel (2001-2003)
9. William "Jim" Haynes, Defense Department general counsel (2001-2008)
10. Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense (2001-2006)
11. John Rizzo, CIA deputy general counsel (2002-2004), acting general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency (2001-2002, 2004-present)
12. Steven Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general, OLC (2004), acting assistant attorney general, OLC (2005-2009)
13. George W. Bush, president (2001-2009)


Bush's close allies still insist if he authorized it, it couldn't be torture.

um yeah, great precedent there.  I'm sure if Obama authorizes something the right-wingers disagree with, they'll be happy to just let it go

Maybe a little bit of waterboarding would get us to the truth

The old Richard Nixon justification.

I'm sure Obama doesn't want to deal with this issue.  That's why I hope Cheney keeps going around shooting his mouth off (better than shooting off another old man's mouth, btw) and the GOP rednecks keep harping on Pelosi.  That way, maybe Obama will finally have to put his foot down, just like Eisenhower finally had to censure Joe McCarthy because Roy Cohn tried to "wreck the army."

Give 'em enough water and they'll board themselves!
::)

I'm sure Obama doesn't want to deal with this issue.  That's why I hope Cheney keeps going around shooting his mouth off (better than shooting off another old man's mouth, btw) and the GOP rednecks keep harping on Pelosi.  That way, maybe Obama will finally have to put his foot down, just like Eisenhower finally had to censure Joe McCarthy because Roy Cohn tried to "wreck the army."

Give 'em enough water and they'll board themselves!
::)


that's the odd thing isn't it?  That the right would rather try and tarnish Pelosi when Obama was willing to let the whole thing drop (which he shouldn't).  The right is the one keeping this thing alive, and they stand the most to loose by investigations that will not portray them right.

The right is the one keeping this thing alive, and they stand the most to lose by investigations that will not portray them right.


Not at all.

Opponents of torture aren't going to vote Republican in any circumstance. 

In 2004, the 2006 midterm, and in 2008, they did vote Democratic. 

In 2006, due to Bush's inexplicable (with 20/20 hindsight, maybe it was all the Bible verses on the front pages of the Powerpoint presentations?  Gotta keep the boss happy!) reluctance to fire Rummy for the failed Iraq war, anti-Rumsfeld Republicans stayed home.  This handed control of the Senate to the Dems, and the decision to fire Rummy a couple of weeks later - a decision which might have saved the 'pubs a seat or two - was even more inexplicable.

When it's demonstrated that the current Democratic administration (and the 2006-2008 Democratic Senate) is every bit as pro-torture as the previous Republican administration, the anti-torture Democrats might stay home for 2010's midterms.  Might be enough votes to tip one of the swing Senate seats back to the 'pubs, and turn a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority (Specter no doubt charged a high price for that last seat) into a 59-seat one.

Both sides are pro-torture, and neither side gives a wet slap about the moral high ground.  But that's OK, since neither do enough of the American people to make any difference in the underlying policy.  The only thing we're voting on is which wing of the Party gets to do the torturing.

Chucky is right that the right is keeping this alive. You have Dick Cheney talking on almost every news program about it. That alone is keeping the subject alive. And now the Repubs wanting to go after Nancy because she MAY or may not have been brief.

The situation would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.



Cat

that's the odd thing isn't it?  That the right would rather try and tarnish Pelosi when Obama was willing to let the whole thing drop (which he shouldn't).  The right is the one keeping this thing alive, and they stand the most to loose by investigations that will not portray them right.


Tarnish Pelosi?  SHE is the one who is trying to tarnish the CIA's reputation.

Note that Leon Panetta, CIA chief, is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and vociferously is maintaining the position that Pelosi has, uh, faulty memory.

Tarnish Pelosi?  SHE is the one who is trying to tarnish the CIA's reputation.

Note that Leon Panetta, CIA chief, is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and vociferously is maintaining the position that Pelosi has, uh, faulty memory.


tarnish the CIA's reputation?  um... it's the CIA... they're reputation is slightly higher than that of the KGB. If there's one thing the CIA has done pretty consistently time and again, it's lie.  I'd even take the word of Bush or Cheney over that of the CIA.

tarnish the CIA's reputation?  um... it's the CIA... they're reputation is slightly higher than that of the KGB. If there's one thing the CIA has done pretty consistently time and again, it's lie.  I'd even take the word of Bush or Cheney over that of the CIA.


Took the words right outta my mouth!
::)

From the good old days in Iran (imposing the shah) through the Chilean coup (1973) right up to this very day the CIA has proven itself to be unreliable, incompetent and dishonest.  But what can you expect from such an organization?