John McCain is not a “conservative”. He does not believe in many of the values that conservatives hold dear to their hearts. His supporters will tell you how good on National Security John McCain is.
However, he wants to give Constitutiona…

This gives you the full experience of the sound, perfectly balanced for your listening enjoyment….

2) Take no terrorists prisoner. (Except for interrogate, then execute.)

3) Win the goddamned war against these maniacs.

Elect no one who doesn’t understand these three points.

Somebody needs to ask Ollie North to discuss Abu Nidal’s plans to assassinate he and his family.

I know for a fact that our soldiers at Gitmo have received specific threats from al-Qaedists against their wives and children. There’s no way these terrorists could have gotten the detailed information on these soldiers’ families without the ACLU lawyers feeding it to them.

If they destroyed this information (not “evidence”) it was for the reasons cited– to protect Americans in harms way.

And I’m still waiting for Murtha’s apology to the Haditha marines.

RW_theoriginal on December 7, 2007 at 7:29 PM

It would be the first ever co-ed playboy spread. Actually Vanity Fair probably has this in the works already for it’s next cover.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 7:07 PM

That’s quite the visual, but somewhere they would have to get a shot of Joe in his pimp gear too.

RW_theoriginal on December 7, 2007 at 6:35 PM

It’s too bad she turned Hef down. I can just see her as a centerfold wearing nothing but dark glasses, an Hermes scarf, an I ♥ John Kerry tattoo, and a fistful of hundred dollar bills.

Does she not realize what a disgraceful Ho she sounds like?

But hey, I’d love to pull out a chair for her. Oops, so sorry!

Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 6:31 PM

I read a sad story this morning that Valerie “shameless publicity %$&#@” Plame is drawing the line at posing for Playboy, but she says it’s really nice to have Warren Beatty pull out your chair for you at dinner parties.

Didn’t I hear that her life had been destroyed?

RW_theoriginal on December 7, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Great point! And isn’t the CIA their favorite government agency? After all, their allies like WaPo’s Dana Preist rely on then for leaks in order to damage our national security.

No doubt this whole situation could have been avoided if only Valerie Plame hadn’t been outed as being Joe Wilson’s wife.

Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Were you expecting that second point # 2 to self destruct in 10 seconds? :-)

Why is the left suddenly so intent on outing some CIA agents? Wasn’t that the worst thing in the world for the last four years?

Hurt one of them, save 1000 lives. Fair trade.

2. John McCain’s war on terror creds are not as great as presented.

2. As much as I am not a fan of the CIA, I see no reason why they should keep the tapes. Of course I’m a child of the “Mission Impossible” television series. Good morning, Mr. Phelps.

3. Gerald Posner is a self-serving jackass. See the (fascinating) update. It’s all about him and if this nation is going to have another Abu Ghraib moment, so be it!

The big story the past couple of days has been the news of the CIA’s admission that they destroyed at least two interrogation tapes back in 2005 (h/t: Captain Ed):
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least…

It’s disgusting and dispairing.

The CIA erased tapes? Thank God. Imagine if the tapes were handed over… we’d be seeing them for a year.

We’re fighting the most ruthless , cruel , savage and evil people EVER… and because of people on both sides who are upset over tapes, we’re going to lose.

Here’s the latest meme floating around the lefty blogosphere, courtesy of the New York Times and …
Popularity: unranked [?]……

General Hayden said the tapes were originally made to ensure that agency employees acted in accordance with “established legal and policy guidelines.” General Hayden said the agency stopped videotaping interrogations in 2002.

Exhibit B:

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

Sounds like they stopped recording not because the tapes had served their purpose, but because they had failed their purpose, i.e. they revealed illegal activity. Of course, it doesn’t really matter what the tapes showed. They were evidence, and they were willfully destroyed. Nothing that a decade in prison won’t cure. Maybe the government will have mercy and allow them to serve their time in beautiful Club G’itmo!

Beginning in 2003, attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui began seeking videotapes of interrogations they believed might help them show their client wasn’t a part of the 9/11 attacks. These requests heated up in 2005 as the defense slowly learned the identities of more detainees in U.S. custody.

In May 2005, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to disclose whether interrogations were recorded. The government objected to that order, and the judge modified it on Nov. 3, 2005, to ask for confirmation of whether the government “has video or audio tapes of these interrogations” and then named specific ones. Eleven days later, the government denied it had video or audio tapes of those specific interrogations.

Last month, the CIA admitted to Brinkema and a circuit judge that it had failed to hand over tapes of enemy combatant witnesses. Those interrogations were not part of the CIA’s detention program and were not conducted or recorded by the agency, the agency said.

This, essentially, is the result of Sen. John McCain’s announced policy of keeping interrogation techniques like waterboarding illegal, but knowing full well that it will be used in extreme circumstances, and that when it is used the agents who used it will find themselves in legal jeopardy no matter what the outcome of the interrogation was. It’s the politics of passing the buck.

I agree completely.
It seems to me it is strategically the best thing for the CIA to take a political hit in this case than to begin turning over such tapes.

I just wish the political hit weren’t so predictable.