While I would really like to see Messrs. Addington and Yoo eaten alive by hungry rats I honestly cannot blame them for jerking Nadler and Conyers off they way they did, because I have never seen more incompetent questioning of subpoenaed witnesses. What I saw was comparable to a couple of PTA members questioning the Lucchese crime family's lawyers.

Nadler is a passive schmuck and Conyers is either a heroin junkie or he's senile -- or both are deliberately and cooperatively soft-balling these two pricks.

No wonder BushCo has been so successful.

I will say this, John Conyers should sell tapes of himself giving a lecture, it is a sure cure for insomnia, could he talk any slower, as if we're all stupid or deaf or I don't know what. In order to show you have balls, you might have to show them sometime, he won't do it. AAARRGGHHH!!

All I have to say is...Where's JUDGE JUDY when you need her?!

I watched the preceeding. You guys don't know what the committee did. They just hung the whole thing on these clowns.

If water boarding is not torture, let someone do it to the president.

Comments berating Conyers are at best suspicious, and at worse plants from the republicans. Granted I want the democrat party to have a spine, and I want Pelosi to be stronger on FISA. But perhaps being they are politicians they do know what they are doing. After all if the Furor Bush goes to bomb Iran, Pelosi can whip that impeachment resolution right out of comittee. We must give our politicians the benefit of the doubt sometimes, and not always be so critical. We can say we want stronger spines, but we must be the calcium to support them. Just say no to Osteoporisis.

Sorry. I cannot blame the committee because the CRIMINALS they questioned refused to answer them, stonewalled, feigned ignorance, bad memories and miscomprehension. Anyone could see the game those CRIMINALS were playing. But I will blame the committee if they let the matter drop and do not hold those villains accountable.

In my opinion, Cheney and Bush should be impeached for their endorsement of torture alone, not to mention the many other counts of crimes and abuses they have committed.

Torture is immoral, illegal and inhumane. We are all disgraced by this shocking breach of civility and decency.

...and every one of his minions.., ...and Cheney... ...on TV.

My question is why have there been no arrests, no impeachment of at the very least the V.P. who's finger prints are all over this "legalized torture"? Is the congress and Senate just biding time until after the Nov. election? Why is there not more outrage in this country. Why is the media not focusing on this? We are dangerously treading the line of what the Nazis did to the Jews back in WWII. Why are not the Bush Administration not being compared to the war criminals of WWII?

ABSOLUTE WORD

I'll tell you this much, if either one of them had tried to play those fucking games on my ass, I would have said:

"Listen here, you. Answer the Congressman's question - the SPECIFIC question he asked - and do it now, or so help me God, I'll hold you in contempt of Congress, and this very minute have the Sargeant-at-Arms lock your punk ass up in the Congressional jail down in the basement so you can experience what it looks like from the OTHER side of those bars. So ANSWER. NOW. Minus the equivocating, tap dancing or semantic games. NOW."

I logged on to post the question, "Can these guys be held in contempt for not answering the questions?". Slap a contempt of congress on them a few times and maybe some of these jokers will take the hearing(s) seriously...

Yes, maybe. It would at least be nice to make them SIT until they adequately answer the question.

I'd even do pay per view. Oh yeah.

Maybe we could all take up knitting.

Because too many House and Senate members are either in on the take and/or were briefed in committee on various breaches, like the waterboarding, and would be likely held accomplice or accessory after the fact.


Not all Congresspersons and Senators, but too many, yes.


Because the same handful of corporate interests are in collusion with and/or benefiting from the corruption, and have done a blackout on just how much outrage there actually is, which is why net neutrality is critical and grassroots communication lines are essential.


The United States have been incrementally turning into Orwell's Oceania since RayGun; this is simply the natural digression of the Project for the New American Century, the New World Order that Poppy promised for his second term, and the desperation of a dying GOP and ever-more-transparent DLC. Global depression leading to unitary corporatism is the goal. As for the Nazi charges, because the Shrub deministration and its Rove-schooled media operatives deflect and project such allusions onto those who oppose them, use them as anecdotes for policies and actions that are the direct opposite of what they purport, and/or spin such charges onto those whom they wish to steal oil from, while the very real historic associations between the Crime Family and the Third Reich, back to Prescott, go untouched by the Mainstream Ministry of Disinformation machine. It's been later than We think for a very long time. Long live the resistance.

Well, then MikeK has been a Republican plant at RRMB for a very long time. Lord knows he's more conservative than many here, so that must prove it.

WTF is it with people that among the first credible explanations for someone holding an opinion different different from their own is that the poster doesn't actually hold that opinion, but that they're in fact plants, moles, paid posters, etc? It's intellectually the laziest damned thing I've ever seen. Christ, people - MikeK can just be wrong, no? Or PERHAPS he's at least entitled to disagree?

If Conyers didn't drive you nuts with his five minutes being consumed in large part by lengthy pauses, empty rhetoric and confused, rambling syntax, then you're a far more patient person than I.

I thought Cohen (sp?) drilled in rather nicely, as did one or two others intermittently. I thought the rest asked open-ended questions, and a great many questions were asked that the questioners had no reason to expect an answer to (asking a lawyer for a legal opinion on the stand is ludicrous). I think the greatest benefit done was exposing Addington for the smug asshole he is, and publicizing the breathtaking scope, stupidity and horror of Yoo's bullshit labeled as opinion.

Go ahead, accuse me of being a deep cover back-up plant who is paid to rush in when the first-line plant is challenged. Cheeee-rist, people.

Amen Brotherdavid. AMEN!

I am surprised they got anything accomplished, and I dont think they are doing it intentionally, I just think they are lazy, they have been there so long nothing really matters anymore

the one guy I thought was good was the African American congressman whatever his name was (not conyers), he is good and quick and to the point

You say this all the time (on the other board especially) without proof. RRMB wants proof for such statements.

That's our standard.

My sentiment is this - it's a certainty the Repukes on the committee would object, but if I were chairman, I'd simple say, "we'll take your objection under consideration" and lock his punk as up anyways. Even if it gets overturned, Addington/Yoo would still would have to cool their heels behind bars for a while and at MINIMUM, experience DOUBT as to whether or not they were getting out.

The truth of the matter is, these guys are DARING us to lock them up. These leather bottom boys really WANT to be punished. I'm serious. When I look at Addington, especially his hand movements and general attitude, and I see a butch john who toughs it up to pass as straight, but is so sexually repressed that his brain has gotten all warped up into that sadomasochistic stuff. That boy WANTS to be spanked.

Oh, I with you there. When the woman said flat out that she didn't believe him and he asked, "Is there a question in there, ma'am?" I was VERY disappointed she didn't answer, "No, just an expression of disgust for a liar."

Rhetorically, I would have been all over their asses.

This could be true. Or yesterday was just a snapshot of a bigger picture. I did not really focus in on the intent of the Committee's oversight yesterday. Objectively speaking, did they accomplish their goal ? Well, first I would need to know that goal. And, there have been closed door meetings on this subject in the past so this snapshot (to me) does not reveal an entire story. I really could write about 10 more paragraphs here but I don't think it would be prudent to do so. I am an angler from way back.

Jeff Farias played some of that last night too.
It's funny the way they try so hard to avoid getting any on themselves, that they as much as admit they cream their shorts when ever they think about torturing someone.

Makes you wish they had to have a lie detector wired up to them when they had to respond to official questioning.

I completely agree. It is just so infuriating. The Bush Administration is willingly circumventing our constitution and Bill of Rights and letting this country of ours literally go to hell in a hand bag all for the purpose of their own and their cronies personal greed/wealth.

Keith Ellison of Minnesota. He kicked some ass. Oh, and he's the first member of congress who is Muslim - the one Glenn Beck asked words to the effect of, "Why shouldn't I be afraid that your a terrorist?"

I think there's a really big point being missed in all of this. This administration wanted to use torture from day one and establish the legal precedence of using torture for interrogation purposes. The central aim of these laws is not to be able to torture terrorists but to be able to torture anyone they want, including you, me or anybody else that steps out of line.

Tap is anything but a plant- I do understand his frustration with Conyers. Conyers is a Statesman, and something all politicians should aspire to. What we want right now is "Dog the Bounty Hunter." (forgive my allusion to that doofus, but it makes my point) Especially with that arrogant sonofabitch Addington. Seeing him, I can only imagine the absolute arrogance of his boss. He's Cheney's "Maxi-Me."

Well-crafted summary. And spot on.

Exactly. I think some people are in denial about just how criminal and sociopathic these people. A sociopath operates on a level where he or she feels no guilt or responsibility for their actions. They are also extremely narcissistic people. They have utterly no connection to humankind. And these people, in order to keep that narcissism going, have to seek out and find others like them. It's very sick. And when you look at the Gonzales', the Addington's, the Woo's, these very effeminate, but power hungry, sadistic men, a normal person has to say deep down inside that something isn't right with these men. They are born followers, not leaders, and they are love with the men that they serve. In love. It's sick. So 5by5 has nailed that.

Also, I completely agree with Bro David.

The neo-cons simply brought in the House and Senate leadership, briefed them on what was going on, then said, we dare you to do something in this 2002, post 911 climate.

Listening to the replay of Randi's show today (Friday) and the audio replay of the questioning, I disagree completely. And to call Conyers a "heroin" junkie or senile I hope was written in a moment of frustration. If not, well, go do some coke with your torture lovin' commander in chief.

Conyers flat told them that they were playing games with him. He was not going to play the game. The lady told them that they were liars. They would not admit to anything being against the law, even when it was blatant.

There have been no arrest simply because the attorney general has been in the pockets of the Executive branch. We are now on our third attorney general. Subpoenas have been issued but the attorney general will not honor them. Second, it has been blatantly shown that the legislative branch was never allowed into the evil group of American terrorists. As their history of terror is laid out for everyone to see, it will take time for legislators to unveil the entire story to be put before a trial.

committee hearings aren't courts of law, unfortunately.

I believe he and Artur Davis were the only two committee members who managed to make productive use of their time. As for the rest, Conyers -- who seems about to nod out, and that cypher from North Carolina being the absolute worst, they are a virtually comedic embarrassment and should not be seated on such a critical committee.

So, as I said, While Addington and Yoo are a despicable pair, I really can't blame them for behaving contemptuously and leading this laughable group of stumblebums in circles.

Have you ever watched a strung-out heroin junkie engaged in what he believes is a conversation? I don't believe you have. Because if you had you wouldn't be so willing to repudiate what happens to be a valid observation.

There is something definitely wrong with that man, Conyers.

He sounds to me to be a very thoughtful, slow to speak individual. He was very precise in his choice of words, and stopped the man when he decided that enough was enough. He is not a spring chicken.

Look. y'all, take this link and hit the red WATCH video, and go to Conyers at 10:21, and I think it's just painful to sit through his opening comments. There's some GREAT content, but he takes 5 minutes to get the non-consecutive 45 seconds of it out.

Then, when they get up to his questions, at 48:36, he's certainly irked with Yoo dicking around on the question about whether the President can order torturing of a child or burying someone alive, and he gets testy with Addington on Unitary government. But I guess I'm incredulous that anyone would consider that masterful, or even acceptable handling of a hostile witness, especially under a time limit. He manages to get 2 questions out in 5 minutes - maybe 2.5 - and in the process demonstrates the guys are dicks. Anyone not know that before this started?

You ask for the clock to be stopped and then for the witness to be directed to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no, or be held in contempt. But that, and other avenues to pursue are pointless when it takes so long to form a damned sentence.

Check the transcript and time code that run alongside the video (just click on the option box to get it.) Addington is able to get out three and four times as many words as Conyers in the same amount of time. Yoo was able say twice as much.

THAT's why I thought Conyers was largely ineffectual, and suspect it was due to his age, or his reading, or to whatever one might attribute his stumbling, slow delivery. (No, I don't think he was on the nod. See him at around 52:00 if you really take that theory seriously and wish to see it dispelled.)

Gimme a break. There's nothing wrong with Conyers. He's been interviewed on a number of radio and television shows. He is as together as they come.

Have you every heard Boehner on the House floor? That's an addict of some substance.

You obviously haven't watched and or read the entire transcript of the days questioning. It's a character accessment. Jesus, Randi attended an event in last Spring with Conyers and she shared the stage with the man and described him as every bit the stateman. That's good enough a report for me.

So true. And they want us to know about it too. It's all part of their "shock and awe" doctrine.

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

If you can't tell the difference between fluent, incisive, methodical interrogation and Conyers' ponderous, sleepy, plodding attempt to encircle and impose on an evasive witness there is no point in discussing this issue any further with you.

But I will tell you this; John Conyers is not competent for the position he holds and his glaring ineptitude contributes significantly to the reason the Democrats are incapable of dealing with the Bush Administration. He is no match for such artful dodgers as Addington and Yoo.

I don't know for certain what is wrong with the man, whether he's developing some neurological disorder or or he's naturally dull-witted, but I am quite familiar with the manifest symptoms of heroin narcosis and Conyers' speech characteristic is typical of exactly that.

Regarding Boehner: He is an obvious drunk and there are many Republicans who would defend and make excuses for him, too. But we're discussing Conyers, not Boehner.

Regarding Randi's opinion of John Conyers: I have a different opinion and I've explained the substance of it.

And you are entitled to your opinion.

[/quote]
I thought Cohen (sp?) drilled in rather nicely, as did one or two others intermittently. I thought the rest asked open-ended questions, and a great many questions were asked that the questioners had no reason to expect an answer to (asking a lawyer for a legal opinion on the stand is ludicrous). I think the greatest benefit done was exposing Addington for the smug asshole he is, and publicizing the breathtaking scope, stupidity and horror of Yoo's bullshit labeled as opinion.

Go ahead, accuse me of being a deep cover back-up plant who is paid to rush in when the first-line plant is challenged. Cheeee-rist, people.
[/quote]

Well said!

while the clip wasn't played on Randi's show, there's another soundbite from the hearings where Addington is being questioned by one of the congressmen (Wexler? me dunno) and the topic of whether or not Osama bin Laden watches the Span comes up. Said congressman says that he hopes that Bin Laden is watching and Addington interrupts him mid-sentence with something along the lines of an icy "I'm sure you do"

It was at that point that I wished nothing but ass cancer and painful death upon the man. You're in front of Congress you fucking right-wing prick. Show some respect.

Anyone that thinks Conyers has lost it or is a "heroin addict" (jesus what an assumption) doesn't know crap about this gentleman. Yeah, I watched the testimony and Conyers questioning, he got just as much information as the Dem chair did, squat, but NOTICE that unlike the chair, he didn't take the non-answers or allow them to duck the question. He cut them off, he said over and over:

ANSWER THE QUESTION

You don't think he was sharp enough? Or are you so desperate to find someone to blame for lawyers acting like lawyers? Did you honestly think two sharp lawyers weren't going to duck, vacilate and obfuscate any involvement with this disastrous policy of the executive branch?

Heroin addict my ass, you can come up with something better than that crap.

Have a nice day.