CIA Report

[garbon]

Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.

I'm not even sure why we should care if Bush is being attacked or not.

[CountDeMoney]

Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.

Oh, don't worry:  there will be even more hot Benghazigate action on its way.   The latest committee meets tomorrow.

With other Benghazi investigations completed, final probe ramping up
November 24
Washington Post


Republicans who remain convinced that there was an Obama administration coverup surrounding the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, are pinning their hopes on one last congressional probe to produce proof of a scandal.

Others in the GOP, however, are urging that the party drop the Benghazi conspiracy theories and move on.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi will produce what Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Monday will be "the definitive report" on the attack that killed four Americans on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, and he reappointed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) , a former federal prosecutor known for his patterned blazers and impressive oratorical skills, to lead the panel.

"Two years later, the American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night — and why," Boehner said in a statement.

The heightened interest in the select committee comes in the wake of a House Intelligence Committee report, released last week, that rejected long-running conspiracy theories that the U.S. military was prevented from rescuing Americans targeted in the attack.

Gowdy's committee will hold a public hearing next month — only its second since being established in May — with other hearings planned for next year, including several behind closed doors in order to review classified information, according to aides who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Democrats complain that the committee is a waste of both time and money, since it has developed no clear purpose or specific plan.

Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) — an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's foreign policy — say that the Gowdy panel can produce significant results because it enjoys a broader mandate than the oversight committees that have produced reports so far. In those cases. the committees investigated specific actions by the CIA, Pentagon or State Department.

"I hope a joint committee looking at all three agencies together, rather than stove-piping, can get through this," Graham said over the weekend on CNN. The South Carolina Republican was especially critical of the House Intelligence Committee report.

While the report did fault the CIA and other agencies for incorrectly assessing what caused the attacks and the White House for a "flawed" public response, it mostly debunked the assertions that the casualties were caused by delayed military response.

Graham called the intelligence panel's report "absolute garbage." Speaking Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," he said the report "puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the intelligence community."

"When the Department of Defense committees looked at [the attacks], the Department of Defense was held blameless. At the end of the day, everybody is pointing fingers to everybody else," he said.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said Rubio was not pleased with the House Intelligence report.

"Regardless of the report's conclusions, many unanswered questions still remain, such as why no one at the State Department has been held accountable for the failure to heed the intelligence warnings of the deteriorating security situation in Libya, which is outrageous," spokeswoman Brooke Sammon said in an e-mail.

Spokesmen for other potential GOP presidential candidates, including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), didn't respond to requests for comment.

At least some Republicans, including Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), believe it's time for the GOP to drop the issue altogether.

"I've always thought the biggest problem with Benghazi is how it was cast by the administration and the remarks that Susan Rice just really threw in the face of what we knew was going on," he said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But with regard to the other things that were addressed by this report, well, yes, I thought for a long time that we ought to move beyond that."

Gowdy said in a statement that the intelligence panel's report will assist his "comprehensive investigation" that is designed to produce the "final, definitive accounting of the attack on behalf of Congress."

Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), another former federal prosecutor and a member of the select committee, said that the intelligence panel's work "is one of many tools" that will be used "to put together a cohesive and comprehensive picture of the attack on our consulate."

"The American public deserves all of the facts regarding this tragic attack, and we are employing a deliberative and thorough process to find them," Brooks said.

Democrats on the committee have complained that Boehner is devoting at least $3.3 million in taxpayer funding to bankroll a committee without any clear goals.

"We don't have a timetable yet, and we don't have a scope of investigation yet," Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee and the Benghazi committee, said Monday in an interview. "It's not because [Gowdy] is unwilling to work with us, it's that we haven't come to a conclusion about where it's headed."

Schiff defended the intelligence panel for working over two years on a report that was unanimously approved by all the members.

"The only real objection we're hearing is that it contradicts a myth. And for some, no amount of factual documentation is going to change their Fox-driven conclusion," he said, referring to the Fox News Channel, which has aggressively covered the attack, its aftermath and subsequent investigations.

[sbr]

Well... to be honest, I think embarrassing a political opponent by bringing to light stuff they've actually done or allowed - if that's even the case here - is significantly more acceptable than manufacturing controversies or investigating minor events repeatedly in the hopes of creating a scandal.

I'm not even sure why we should care if Bush is being attacked or not.

I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense.  I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense.  I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.

House and Senate leadership of both parties, as well as chairmen and ranking minority members of the two intelligence committees, got briefed by the CIA on what they were doing.

[DGuller]

I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense.  I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.

House and Senate leadership of both parties, as well as chairmen and ranking minority members of the two intelligence committees, got briefed by the CIA on what they were doing.

Did they get the full briefing, or the PG-13 version that many politicians were getting?

[Admiral Yi]

Did they get the full briefing, or the PG-13 version that many politicians were getting?

I wasn't aware of any PG13 version.  I thought the people I mentioned were the only ones briefed at all.

[grumbler]

I don't think they actually care about Bush, but a lot of current Republicans and conservatives were tied in pretty tight to all that nonsense.  I would think they are throwing an ex-President who is now almost completely out of the public eye under the bus to deflect the criticism that could/should eventually end up on them.

House and Senate leadership of both parties, as well as chairmen and ranking minority members of the two intelligence committees, got briefed by the CIA on what they were doing.

Apparently, they got the "enhanced truth" and not the truth, if the Senate report is to be believed.

Frankly, I am not surprised that no one has resigned (from the Senate or the CIA) over this, but there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity or war crimes, so we can still hope to see some criminal charges at some point down the road.  It would be delicious if there were some Senate and House leaders of both parties sent to prison if, indeed, they, as the "they knew about it all along" theory has it, knew, because that means that they were part of a conspiracy to hide the crimes. 

[jimmy olsen]

What a bunch of bullshit

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.single.html

But Obama has acted rightly by refusing to authorize prosecutions. He acted rightly because prosecutions would have failed to secure convictions; and he acted rightly as a matter of principle. Criminal punishment of a partisan opponent who engages in illegal behavior for policy rather than personal reasons can pose a risk to democracy.

[The Brain]

Slate.

[Zanza]

Apparently, they got the "enhanced truth" and not the truth, if the Senate report is to be believed.

Frankly, I am not surprised that no one has resigned (from the Senate or the CIA) over this, but there is no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity or war crimes, so we can still hope to see some criminal charges at some point down the road.  It would be delicious if there were some Senate and House leaders of both parties sent to prison if, indeed, they, as the "they knew about it all along" theory has it, knew, because that means that they were part of a conspiracy to hide the crimes.

Wouldn't the first people to face charges be those in the executive that signed off on these tactics? The article mentions John Ashcroft for example. He was presumably in a position to actually influence policy unlike maybe some congress members that were just briefed or some CIA operatives that "just followed orders".

[Zanza]

What a bunch of bullshit

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2014/12/senate_torture_report_why_obama_won_t_prosecute_cia_and_bush_administration.single.html

But Obama has acted rightly by refusing to authorize prosecutions. He acted rightly because prosecutions would have failed to secure convictions; and he acted rightly as a matter of principle. Criminal punishment of a partisan opponent who engages in illegal behavior for policy rather than personal reasons can pose a risk to democracy.

I don't know enough about the seperation of powers between the judiciary, the legislative and the executive in the US: Is there a way for a court or congress to order the executive to open prosecution of these crimes?

I know our executive also has a bit of discretion what to prosecute, especially when it comes to matters of national security. However, the victim of a crime has the possibility to ask a court to order the prosecution to take up his case  though under certain circumstances even if the executive doesn't want that.

[Martinus]

In Poland at least the position of Attorney General is independent from the government. He/she is appointed by the President (who in Poland holds a much more ceremonial position than in Presidential systems but is elected in direct elections, so is independent from the Parliament) from two candidates proposed by the self-governance bodies of judges and prosecutors; and is appointed for a fixed term of 6 years (with limited means of being recalled before the end of his/her term) and cannot be reappointed for another term.

This is only a recent development (until 2010 the Minister of Justice was also, automatically, the Attorney General).

Edit: Which is also why Polish prosecutors have been investigating the allegiations of CIA prisons for a while now, but complained they used to be frustrated by Polish and American authorities. They now said the US Senate Report is very helpful and may result in charges being brought against Polish officials who were involved.

Incidentally, those involved (the President, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of Defense at the time) are all post-communist "social-democrats" which makes it doubly ironic.

[Siege]

My problem is with Senator John McCain. Let me see if understand his logic:
I have been blown up and shot at by Islamic terrorists multiple times, and because I'm still alive, it means explosions and gunshots don't work, but I know how bad they are, so I cannot use them against the enemies of the United States.
Dude is a doughbag.

[grumbler]

My problem is with Senator John McCain. Let me see if understand his logic:
I have been blown up and shot at by Islamic terrorists multiple times, and because I'm still alive, it means explosions and gunshots don't work, but I know how bad they are, so I cannot use them against the enemies of the United States.
Dude is a doughbag.

I don't think you understand the language well enough to understand him.  Don't sweat it; it's over your head by a mile.  And the term is "doughboy" and doesn't refer to former aviators anyway.  You probably want to retire "doughbag" from your vocabulary.

[Siege]

The big question is, does it work or not?
As a proud practicioner of Tactical Questioning, different from enhanced interrogation techniques, I effing guaranty you it does work, however you have to be trained to separate valuable tactical information from resistance misinformation.