If John Boehner & Kit Bond know that the CIA was telling the truth to Congress..

...then THEY, when THEY were in the majority, were told about the waterboarding. And, THEY are guilty of covering up war crimes.

People who live in glass houses...

and so that is all we are going to hear. see, now here is the reason that there shouldn't be only a few owners of all the media in the country.

did the Media know? Are they covering for the CIA and the Republicons, or are they covering for themselves?

at that time. The Abu Ghraib photos were published in spring of 2004 I believe. Bush said the torture was just a few bad apples. Remember?

very well.

You didn't even have to make an effort to find it out because Hersh gave many, many interviews about his investigation and what he found out. It was no secret. He was pilloried by the right at the time for making it public.

Hearing the spin that it's on Nancy Pelosi's head is like like living in the twilight zone.

It is CYA time for many right now.

A. Barflies
B. Used car Salesmen
C. Carnival barkkkers
D. All of the Above
E. None of the above
F. All of the above including none of the above

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/08/national/main3919474.shtml
<snip>
President George W. Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," the president said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it."

The bill provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and includes the interrogation requirement. It passed the House in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.

Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence, and raise the country's moral standing abroad.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would work to override Mr. Bush's veto next week. "In the final analysis, our ability to lead the world will depend not only on our military might, but on our moral authority," said Pelosi, a California Democrat.

But based on the margin of passage in each chamber, it would be difficult for the Democratic-controlled Congress to turn back the veto. It takes a two-thirds majority, and the House vote was 222-199 and the Senate's was 51-45.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11636309
<snip>
WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress on Tuesday upheld his veto of a bill to ban the CIA from subjecting enemy detainees to interrogation methods denounced by critics as torture.

A largely party-line vote of 225-188 in the Democratic-led House of Representatives fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to override the president.

Bush maintains that the United States does not torture, but has refused to discuss interrogation techniques, saying that doing so could tip off terrorists.

The CIA has acknowledged using a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding on three terrorism suspects, including accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, but says it stopped using that method in 2003.

Waterboarding has been condemned by many U.S. lawmakers, human rights groups and foreign countries as a form of torture.

In voting to sustain Bush's veto, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, attacked Democrats for failing to approve a stalled Senate-passed bill that would expand the government's ability to track foreign targets.

"Rather than holding a vote to give terrorists our (interrogation) playbook, Congress should be voting to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to spy on them," Hoekstra said.
------------
Please note that even in 2008 George Bush denied using torture.

------------------

:kick:

and if journalists would put down the talking points
and start acting their profession
then we might get to the truth of the matter.

Some brave reporting could blow the lid off this.

...because, you see, they made no claim to be against tort... er, enhanced interrogation techniques in the first place.

So, see, they were under no obligation to report it. Because, like, they weren't against it anyway.

So that's okay then.

Or something like that.

:sarcasm: