that he didn't "recall" being made aware of the tapes or their destruction?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/cia.videotapes/
Do you think that's legal parsing of words to avoid any responsibility?
2007-12-10 05:00:20 · 19 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes it is and he's lying.
The revelation of the CIA torture tapes and their destruction has profound implications for democratic rights in the United States.
The CIA destroyed the footage because it feared the tapes would be exposed either in the course of the 9/11 Commission probe or various judicial proceedings underway at the time. The US government knew that were the American people to see documentary proof of what it was doing in their name they would in their vast majority be shocked, outraged and repulsed.
They were also well aware that they were breaking the law. The Times reported in its initial article on Friday, citing officials familiar with the decision, that the tapes were destroyed “in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks.”
In this revelation, two sides of the government’s lawlessness converge: Its contempt for the law and any standard of human rights in its foreign policy, and its contempt for the Constitution, the law and the courts in its domestic operations.
Moreover, the complicity of the Democrats underscores the lack of any serious commitment to the defense of democratic rights within either of the two parties of the US corporate elite. Should the Democrats win control of the White House in 2008, there will be no significant change in the basic policy of the US government. From torture, to domestic spying, to illegal wars of aggression, the Democrats have been exposed again and again as direct accomplices of the Bush administration.
Underlying this complicity is a bipartisan defense of the interests of the American ruling elite—in its imperialist expansion abroad and its attack on the living standards and democratic rights of the working class at home.
2007-12-10 05:04:06 · answer #1 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 5⤊ 8⤋
No it does not surprise me that the CIA did something that the president didn't remember. Oh and then there is this:
"Later Friday, two senior administration officials told CNN that then-deputy White House counsel Harriet Miers was aware of the tapes and told the CIA not to destroy them.
The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of potential investigations on the matter, said they believe this is "exculpatory" for the White House because it shows a top official had told the CIA not to destroy the tapes. The officials also said the information about the tapes was not relayed to the president until this week."
Now you can tell his staff something and he not remember but the fact remains that the CIA was advised by the White House not to destroy the tapes......
How again is this Bush's fault?
2007-12-10 05:27:16 · answer #2 · answered by Tip 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it's just politician talk.. that's the usual response if either... a) they don't have all the facts yet to take their stance...
b) they want to avoid responsibility...
c) or they simply do not honestly recall.. ( he can't possibly recall EVERY bit of info that gets passed his way..)
i personally feel that he honestly did not know the EXACT details of the tapes.. i'm almost positive that he knew SOMETHING about them, but did not have all the facts.. and therefore gave the "safe" political answer of he didn't "recall".. it allowed him to avoid making a statement about something he did not know the COMPLETE answer to.. which i applaude him for. wish more people would get all their facts straight before they open their mouths..
either way, it doesn't matter.. Bush shouldn't have any responsibility tied to the matter unless he or someone in his administration instructed the CIA to destroy them, which is unlikely... but, we ARE talking about the CIA.. that's what they do... it's a very secretive agency.. and rightfully so.. they supply highly sensitive information. and therefore have to protect their operatives.. why we would think that the CIA wasn't doing business as usual is beyond me.. just because it had an instance of waterboarding so that the media can use it to destroy America's and Bush's image more than it already has and people want to get all bent over it... it's already been established that the "torture" technique waterboarding has been used.. WHY would we need a video to plaster all over the internet for the world to see??? how about this.. we get a video of terrorists chopping heads off of Americans and plaster THAT technique all over the internet and news?? it's amazing how bent people want to be over this, but when one of our OWN gets beheaded it makes news for about ohhh 24hrs and then you never hear of it again??? look, i understand the whole "being secretive and destroying tapes" conversation... what the CIA does and have done for decades has been the topic of conversation before... it's nothing new.. the ONLY reason it's a big deal right now is because the MEDIA is making it a big deal... because THEY don't like having a tape of something that's as controversial as waterboarding NOT in their possession to beat us over the head with to sell advertising and viewership...
2007-12-10 05:30:21 · answer #3 · answered by jasonsluck13 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't find it odd at all. It also may very well be the exact truth since he could have been involved in authorizing a general policy of hiding CIA interrogator identity, but not directly know what that involved or what pieces of documentation were to be destroyed.
But, for his public relations benefit, he's best off stating that he does not recall, which can't ever be proven to be a lie at the time he said it.
2007-12-10 05:05:45 · answer #4 · answered by Lynne D 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The CIA is not exactly Bush Country. The NIE was written by Bush haters. Porter Goss left office plus you used the Clinton News Network as your source.
2007-12-10 05:09:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Could be. Of course, I also don't expect the President to remember every little thing that's said to him.
If the tapes being destroyed was truly an innocent act (I don't know if it was or wasn't), then it's entirely possible it didn't seem important enough to him to remember someone mentioning it.
Of course, on the other hand, "I don't recall" is the phrased used by every slimy politician to try to cover up some slimy thing he's done.
And it is so incredibly difficult to give this administration the benefit of the doubt any more.
So who the heck knows, any more?
2007-12-10 05:04:29 · answer #6 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 6⤊ 4⤋
The CIA spokesman came out and said Bush was unaware of it.
So he did not recall it because he never knew about it in the first place.
They don't tell the President EVERYTHING. He would spent 80 hours a day just listening to information. Do you honestly think that humans can just sit there and soak stuff up all day and remember everything perfectly?
2007-12-10 05:05:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Hypocrite, thy name is Dizz. CLUE: They ALL do this. Allow me to refresh your partisan little memory:
FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.
I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1
2007-12-10 05:09:43 · answer #8 · answered by Trollbuster 6 · 3⤊ 6⤋
That excuse seemed to work for Reagan. Now whenever a Republican gets in trouble they just plead incompetence.
2007-12-10 05:04:46 · answer #9 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋
The general said Bush wasn't told, are any more facts required?
2007-12-10 05:06:27 · answer #10 · answered by Bleh! 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋