http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/...cia_videotapes

Why in the world would congress even think about giving the guy who CIA lawyers admit destroyed the tapes over their objections immunity?

That's like giving a rapists immunity if his lawyer admitted he raped someone.

Just one more impeachable offense of this administration.

They should give the guy immunity.

If he wants immunity, that means he "knows" he did something wrong, that they could nail him for if they wanted - so, once knowing that, then the question becomes, does the information he have, that he wants to bring to the table - is that valuable enough, to ignore whatever legal transgressions may have occurred?

Hmm... yeah, I wanna know what the Bush administration was up to on this one. This one is important "enough", that We the People deserve to know the truth.

We are talking about using torture as an instrument of United States national policy.

If anyone's doing that in my name, I wanna know why.

Yep, I wanna know. I'd give the guy immunity, and find out what he knows.

Otherwise, I mean.... I was reading this guy's sig in some other forum, and it went something like, "One nation under surveillance, with liberty and justice for the politically correct"......

George Orwell was just a few years late, is all (or early, depending on how you look at it).....

Witch Hunt for a Show Trial by a bunch of Dishonest Blowhards.

I'm glad for the most part this was sunk pretty early off and has since floundered in the wasteland of the Bush haters/Far Left kooks lunar zone.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Oderint dum metuant"
"Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Yeah - that would be right after the "far left kooks" forced Bushie to appoint an independent prosecutor.

Face it dude, you are pWned!!!

Durham is doing an investigation not a prosectution.
He was appointed by Attorney General Micheael Mukasy...not Bush.

Back around January 9th a Federal Judge threw out the effort against the Bush administration on this.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/WireSto...4111069&page=1

Face it once again your caught up in something that will get you nowhere.




'pwnd'..is you for the past 7 years going on 8. Its also dork speak


Its dead Jim.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Oderint dum metuant"
"Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/01/hbc-90002219


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has now posted a series of studies to help us zero in on just what’s missing. It will come as no surprise to most that the big offender is the men at the center of the most virulent scandals, and the missing email traffic relates just to those dates in which a federal prosecutor would have the most interest. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office destroyed its emails, in violation of the requirements of the federal records act and potentially criminal law, for the following days:
September 12, 2003: The day on which the headlines in the New York Times read “federal appeals court in Washington yesterday rejected the Bush Administration’s effort to avoid releasing documents about Vice President Cheney Energy Task Force.”

October 1, 2003: The day on which the Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that Vice President Cheney was entitled to keep all the details concerning his meetings with oil executives and their influence in his formulation of national energy policy confidential, including the names of the participants.

October 2, 2003: The day on which senior Congressional Republicans began a rewrite of key energy legislation behind closed doors and without involvement of Democrats—but potentially with the involvement of Vice President Cheney and oil executives involved in his secret energy task force.

October 3, 2003: The Senate approved a requirement that all future contracts to rebuild Iraq be granted on an open and competitive basis after airing open criticism on the closed and controversial process that resulted in multi-billion dollar noncompetitive contract awards to subsidiaries of Halliburton, the company which Vice President Cheney headed before he assumed office, and from which, under a deferred compensation agreement, he continues to receive more compensation than he receives from the Treasury for his services as vice president.

October 5, 2003: Publication of the findings of a task force studying the development of the Iraqi oil industry and its potential for funding the costs of the occupation of Iraq.

January 29, 2004: David A. Kay, the former chief American weapons inspector in Iraq, called for an independent inquiry into pre-war intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs as skepticism about the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD grows.

January 30, 2004: President Bush opposes an independent investigation of intelligence failures surrounding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles despite increasing demands for one by some U.S. lawmakers.

January 31, 2004: Press reports focus on building speculation that an independent commission will be created to look into the White House’s basis for claims that Iraq had WMDs, accusations which were consistently led by Vice President Cheney.

February 15, 2005: Citing the threat exemplified by 9/11, President Bush urges Congress to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

February 16, 2005: An appeals court orders that two reporters who have refused to testify about their conversations with confidential sources regarding the leak that exposed the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame should be held in contempt. It would later be revealed that both had conversations with members of Vice President Cheney’s staff.

May 23, 2005: Calls mount for the resignation of Tom Delay pending the outcome of an investigation into ethical violations. The Congressional and criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff widens to include long-time associate and fellow architect of the Republican takeover of the capital, Grover Norquist. The White House continues to obstruct efforts to identify who Abramoff saw in his hundreds of visits to the White House.

The missing Cheney emails fit a pattern that suggests intentional rather than accidental destruction. They all occur on days on which, considering contemporaneous press reports, the Vice President or his staff members were in the news and would likely have been communicating on the subjects relating to the press coverage. The most persistent themes are the outing of Valerie Plame and Cheney’s secret dealings with a group of oil and gas executives who were directly influencing national energy policy. The Empty Wheel has some excellent analysis of these points.

History will show that not a single person knows what exactly happened between
September/11/2001 & January/19/2009

The tapes, the E-mails...
I think they're also working on one of those "Men in Black" devices that erase your memory,
It will be like the 60's where everybody knew something must have happened,
but can anybody actually be sure what it was?!

__________________
I love Us All,
Ziggy
The Ziggy Articles