Permanent link to MTA daily media news

Perino: Congress Knew More About CIA Activities Than Bush, President Not ‘Aware’ Of Torture Tapes
During the White House press briefing [Friday], reporters bore into White House Press Secretary Dana Perino over when President Bush was first informed about the CIA’s destruction of videotapes in 2005 that featured agency officials using harsh interrogation tactics. Perino said that Bush had “no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday”.
Does he know anything about what goes on in his name?  Click through to watch the video.

WHAT THE TAPES WOULD HAVE SHOWN…. (by Kevin Drum at Political Animal, Washington Monthly)
[He]ere’s what the tapes would have shown: not just that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative, but that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative who was (a) unimportant and low-ranking, (b) mentally unstable, (c) had no useful information, and (d) eventually spewed out an endless series of worthless, fantastical “confessions” under duress. This was all prompted by the president of the United States, implemented by the director of the CIA, and the end result was thousands of wasted man hours by intelligence and and law enforcement personnel. Nice trifecta there. And just think: there’s an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK.

Presidential Perks (by digby)
The political press prides itself on the way it explores “character,” passing judgment on politicians through the lens of bourgeois Village sexual mores and social hierarchy. When it isn’t outright character assassination (usually informed by clever Republican PR) it’s almost always useless as a guide for adults to assess the fitness of candidates for office. But there are times, when a candidates says something so revealing that the hair on the back of your neck stands up. This was one of those times: “… [Bush:] I watched [Larry King’s] interview with [Karla Faye Tucker]… He asked her real difficult questions, like ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?’ ‘What was her answer?’ I wonder. ‘Please,’ Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, ‘don’t kill me.’” The idea that [Bush] didn’t know about these torture session is ludicrous. It was one of the perks.
Read that quote and more at The Real George Bush, whom some of us knew a lot about in 2000, but not by way of the mainstream media.

Suskind: WH Efforts To Pin Full Blame On Rodriguez For Destruction Of Tapes ‘Hard To Believe’
The full blame for the destruction of the tapes has fallen on Jose Rodriguez, then the CIA’s head of the clandestine division. Rodriguez reportedly undertook the destruction of the tapes in a unilateral manner, without receiving any instructions from his bosses or giving them advance notice of his actions. [Friday] night on CNN, Ron Suskind — author of the One Percent Doctrine — said the idea that Rodriquez didn’t get “some authorization from above” is “hard to believe.” “It simply doesn’t work that way,” Suskind said, noting that “at this point, lots was being authorized from the White House in terms of the CIA.”
Click through to watch the video.

‘Well-Informed’ Source Tells CBS That Tapes Were Destroyed To Prevent Prosecution
Last night on the CBS Evening News, national security correspondent David Martin reported that a “well-informed source” informed the network that the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos to “avoid criminal prosecution.”

Torture Tapes (by Larry Johnson at No Quarter)
Let’s be clear why these were destroyed–the chief of the Operations Division, Jose Rodriguez, understood that this was video evidence of torture. It was not the exposure of clandestine identities that had him fretting. It was the fear that CIA officers and contractors could be standing before a tribunal in the Hague trying to explain why the images of torture were not torture. Then there is the potential embarrassment from showing that these extreme interrogation measures did not produce any intelligence of significance.

Krauthammer On Fox (by Andrew Sullivan, thanks to Economist’s View)
[According to Charles Krauthammer,] the government has a right to torture when it feels like it and the right to destroy the evidence because it would incriminate them and hurt the image of the United States. Again, I keep pinching myself that I am actually hearing these things on the television… If this isn’t a form of tyranny, annexed to torture, what is? And if the executive branch can simply get away with it, and have serious commentators defend the president’s trashing of the Constitution as necessary to fulfill his oath of office, we really have left the rule of law behind in the ditch.

‘More Candor’ From Joe Klein
[Thursday], The New York Times published an explosive report revealing that in 2005, the CIA destroyed tapes documenting harsh interrogation tactics against two al Qaeda operatives… Only after the Times informed the CIA that it was publishing its article did the agency finally admit that to destroying these tapes… Yet no act by the Bush administration is too small to go unrecognized by Time’s Joe Klein, who saw it as “more candor”.

The Senate and the Iran NIE (Sic Semper Tyrannus)
The “jungle telegraph” in Washington is booming with news of the Iran NIE.  I am told that the reason the conclusions of the NIE were released is that it was communicated to the White House that “intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary” if the document’s gist were not given to the public.   Translation?  Someone in that group would have gone to the media “on the record” to disclose its contents.

From The Wrong About Everything File (by digby)
From Ilan Goldenberg at Democracy Arsenal: “In recent days conservative like [Ilan] Berman, Norman Podhoretz, Danielle Pletka and Jon Bolton, have been trying to cast doubt on the conclusions of the intelligence community. Now the Washington Post is picking up on it and lending the arguments more credibility.”… [T]he bloodthirsty neoconservatives have a track record over 30 years of exaggerating threats… They should never be taken seriously by anyone again.

Hannity: ‘The NIE Report In 2005 And The One In 2007 Are Basically The Same’
Interviewing John Bolton [Thursday, Sean] Hannity argued that it “is not the case” [that] the administration overinflated the Iranian threat. “The headlines that we’re reading about the NIE are misleading,” he argued. Hannity then claimed the 2005 NIE — which falsely concluded that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons” — was “basically the same” as the 2007 NIE.
Click through to watch the video.

Darth Vader blogging (by Paul Krugman)
Back when Hillary Clinton described Dick Cheney as Darth Vader, a number of people pointed out that this was an unfair comparison. For example, Darth Vader once served in the military. Here’s another reason the comparison is invalid: the contractors Darth Vader hired to build the Death Star actually got the job done [as opposed to the problem-ridden U.S. embassy in Baghdad].

FAIR Media Advisory: The Lou Dobbs Primary?
Media coverage of the 2008 presidential election identifies immigration as a key issue for the U.S. electorate–even though, according to most polling, it does not rank as a top priority for voters.

“Its not True” (by Mark Thoma at Economist’s View)
I think this is a good sign. Do tax cuts pay for themselves?:

Washington Post: Mr. Giuliani and the Tax Fairy. Editorial “…It’s not true…”

Time: Tax Cuts Don’t Boost Revenues, by Justin Fox …”these claims are false…”

Now, will the press make the connection between the willingness to make these claims and character? Those who say this are either making claims they know are false, or have economic advisors who don’t know what they are talking about. In any case, whether its the willingness to mislead to promote an idea, or the incompetence in choosing advisors and the unwillingness to consider evidence at odds with their preconceived notions, it’s worth noting.
Looks like some will, Prof. Thoma.  See below.

Straight shooter, wacky tax idea (by Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe)
JOHN MCCAIN has a reputation as a straight shooter, and on some issues, deservedly so. But when he came to the Globe Wednesday, McCain took refuge in a supply-side myth: the notion that President Bush’s tax cuts have created a compelling revenue surge.

FOX News Clinton bias amplified: Sheppard Smith even wonders why (by John Amato at AMERICAblog)
The fair and balanced network couldn’t do a segment on Oprah supporting Obama without somehow smearing Bill Clinton and as a result, smearing Hillary as well. “Smith: Now for once, forget about Oprah. What America wants to know is—who Gennifer Flowers is going to vote for. Huh. President Clinton’s one time… well… friend…claiming she’d consider voting for Hillary Clinton, surprisingly enough. Flowers, who works as a lounge singer in Las Vegas, says she likes to support her gender in the election. Hillary’s camp so far is not commenting on that endorsement. I have no idea why that was in the newscast (laughter) but it was.
Click through to watch the video.

Deadly Clinton hatred (by Paul Krugman)
I was glad to see that this Times piece by Michael Luo and Kit Seelye got to the heart of the Wayne DuMond case… “Mr. DuMond’s case had become something of a celebrated cause among conservative activists…” There’s a story still not told in regular news media about what really happened during the Clinton years — about the simply insane Clinton hatred on the right, which was aided and abetted by a lot of seemingly respectable people. And Mike Huckabee, however gosh-aw-shucks-likeable he may seem now, was an accessory.

Obama Goes after Krugman (by Mark Thoma at Economist’s View)
Krugman has clearly gotten to the Barack Obama campaign, to the point where they have released an attack on him to try to defend their (indefensible) position on health care mandates. This is based upon misinterpreting what Krugman said, then acting like there’s a contradiction in his statements.
NOT a good idea, Sen. Obama.

WaPoWATB (by digby)
So Deborah Howell clutches her pearls and takes another whiff ‘o smelling salts. Once again the terrible rudeness of liberals who took issue with the fact that the Washington Post repeated slimy wingnut smears on their front page… Even if their critics were questioning their motives, it doesn’t change the fact that the editors of the paper put rightwing oppo trash on the front page of the Washington Post with a halfhearted refutation. It’s not like this is the first time this has happened… Rather than continuing to be reflexively defensive when these things come up, it’s long past time for the Washington Post to do a little soul searching and recognize that an awful lot of people just don’t trust them anymore. Maybe they should put a reporter on it.
Yes, but not Ceci Connolly, please.