RINO Chuck Hagel Brings Balance to CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
By Kyle Drennen | December 11, 2007 - 17:35 ET

In an effort to have a fair and balanced debate on the issue of the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes, "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer invited Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, and liberal Republican, Senator Chuck Hagel, on to Sunday’s broadcast. Hagel proved to be left of Rockefeller:

We are saying what to the world? That the Army Field Manual applies to our Army people, our armed services people, but the C.I.A. and all these Blackwater-type variations of militias and armies are unaccountable to what? That's not who we are as Americans, Bob. We're better than that. We don't need that. The world wants us to be better than that. We want to be better than that. We need to be smarter. Burning tapes, destroying evidence, I don't know how deep this goes. Could there be obstruction of justice? Yes. How far does this go up in the White House? I don't know.

That does not sound like an opinion from the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Going along with Hagel’s speculation of a White House cover up, Schieffer then asked the Senator:

Well, let me just mention this. Reports say that Harriet Miers who was then a lawyer on the president's staff in the White House, found out about this and told the C.I.A., advised against doing it. And apparently they went against those orders but there's no suggestion she went -- told anybody else about it. Should she have told the president?...Could she not have told the president? Is that possible?

At that point Hagel presented two options, either the president is a criminal or an idiot:

This just didn't come up. This was rattling around the White House and in the Congress and the media for the last few years. And so it's hard for me to believe that senior members of the White House somehow -- Didn't pay attention to this or didn't know about it. And you have a counsel in Harriet Miers, or whoever it might be over there, not telling somebody about it. I mean, maybe that was what happened. And maybe that -- maybe they're so incompetent that that's what happened. But I would say that is gross malfeasance and incompetency if in fact that did happen.

Even Schieffer proved to be more outspoken than Rockefeller, who made some attempt to choose his words carefully:

SCHIEFFER: Senator, do you have any idea if there are other tapes?

ROCKEFLLER: I cannot comment on that. I simply cannot comment on that. And if there were other tapes, it would be very interesting to know do they still exist? Were some destroyed? Were some not? Which ones. But I do -- I have no information on that at all.

SCHIEFFER: So there may be other tapes. If there are, would you want to tell the C.I.A. this morning that perhaps it's best not to destroy them?

ROCKEFELLER: Bob, it's very curious to me that they -- and Senator Hagel and I were talking before the program -- you know, that they started this taping in 2002. And they stopped it in 2002. You know, and so all of this brouhaha has developed since then. And it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. And I really agree with what Senator Hagel said. I mean, he's a combat veteran. The F.B.I. agrees with what he says, that you -- that sometimes in fact you get the worst possible intelligence because if you're using enhanced techniques more dangerous...

SCHIEFFER: Torture.

ROCKEFELLER: Things of that nature, that would border on that, or be that, then they'll tell you whatever you want to know. And then sometimes they'll say, well, it works.

Schieffer concluded the discussion of the tapes by asking: "I take it both of you want the Congress to investigate this. You do not think there's a need for a special counsel?" Schieffer later expressed his thoughts on the matter during his commentary segment at the end of show, when he asked: "Have we helped our cause with the rest of the world when they come to believe we have sunk to using the tactics of those who oppose us?"

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

10:30AM TEASER:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on "Face the Nation" why did the C.I.A. destroy tapes of agents interrogating terror suspects? And what's the real story on whether Iran is building nuclear weapons? In 2005 the C.I.A. told a federal judge it had no videotape of certain terrorist interrogations. Then it destroyed hundreds of hours of just such tapes which were said to show U.S. interrogators torturing suspects. Are there any more tapes and what did congressional leaders, who were briefed on the interrogations, know about the tapes and the methods the interrogators were using? We'll ask one of those congressional leaders, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, is also on the Intelligence Committee and will be with us as well. We'll talk about the stunning reversal of intelligence on Iran...but first the mystery of the C.I.A. interrogation tapes on "Face the Nation."

10:31AM:

BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning again. With us the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a key Republican member of that committee and also the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, I want to get right to this. The C.I.A. was asked by a federal judge if it had certain tapes of agents interrogating terrorist suspects. The agency said no. Now the agency has confirmed that not only there were tapes but that it destroyed the tapes. Why were the tapes destroyed, Senator, in your opinion?

JAY ROCKEFELLER: Very good question. And I think it -- you know the -- you can speculate. Were there things on those tapes that they didn't want to have seen? That didn't conform to what the attorney general would allow them to do? Were they just trying to bury the general subject? I mean, the whole idea of taping... I don't have anything against taping because it works out for the benefit of the one who is being interrogated because anything... any, you know, bad treatment clearly comes up on that. And it also protects the person who's doing the interrogating by showing that he or she is doing it in the proper fashion. But these particular tapes, I don't know why they were destroyed. And I also don't know why we didn't find out about that until 2006.

SCHIEFFER: You found out about it when you read it in the newspaper?

ROCKEFELLER: Yeah, yeah.

SCHIEFFER: Here is a story that's on the front page of the Washington Post today. It says the Hill was briefed on water boarding back in 2002. Water boarding, of course, is this technique that's been described -- our own Army's manual on interrogation says it is illegal. The Geneva Conventions outlaws it. Do you know if Hill leaders were briefed on this? You're now the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. You were not the chairman when these briefings were supposed to have taken place, Senator. Can you tell us anything about that?

ROCKEFELLER: One of the unfortunate problems, but necessary problems, of being one of the gang of four or the gang of eight...

SCHIEFFER: These are the chairmen of the House and Senate committees....

ROCKEFELLER: Chairmen, vice chairmen, yeah. Is that you cannot talk about what you may or may not have been briefed on. And in fact, you can't even talk about it to your chief of staff on the Intelligence Committee or to anybody else. I couldn't even talk about it with Chuck.

SCHIEFFER: So you can't say anything about this, even whether you were briefed or not.

ROCKEFELLER: Correct.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think yourself...

ROCKEFELLER: But, however, I will tell you this. And that is that I was really disturbed by what I was reading and what we grew to know more as the subject became more understood...

SCHIEFFER: Well, what do you plan to do now, Senator?

ROCKEFELLER: Well what -- I'm just explaining. I mean, three times, once in the committee in 2005, I tried to get an investigation going by the Senate Intelligence Committee on torture and interrogation. And we lost on an 8 to 7 vote, which was a party-line vote, which I regret. On the floor we did a sense of the Senate resolution which was ruled out of order. I was -- I joined with Carl Levin in 2005 on this same kind of investigation, and it was defeated. Not entirely on party lines but more or less on that. And now we've passed the Senate authorization bill which specifically says that the C.I.A. and everybody who does intelligence, has to abide by the Army Field Manual.

SCHIEFFER: Which would outlaw water boarding.

ROCKEFELLER: Which presumably does not include that.

SCHIEFFER: Mm Hmm. Any immediate plans on this? Are you planning to call anybody before your committee?

ROCKEFELLER: Yes. We're having the C.I.A. Director Michael Hayden's going to appear before our committee on this coming Tuesday and talk about interrogation and techniques.

SCHIEFFER: Senator, do you think there is justification for the kind of technique we're talking about here, which -- or for destroying these tapes?

CHUCK HAGEL: No, I do not think there's justification for either, Bob. And I say that, first, if the objective -- and it should be the objective -- of our efforts to obtain intelligence, good intelligence, real intelligence from detainees and prisoners, if that is the objective, then let's be smart in how we do that. Almost everyone that I have ever talked to about this since I've been in the Senate, and my experience in the Army and in Vietnam, has said and confirmed -- and it was just again confirmed in a story in the Washington Post a couple of months ago about World War II interrogators over in Fort Hunt in Maryland interrogating Nazi prisoners, that inhumane, cruel variations of torture do not work for many reasons. And when you're talking about fanatics, when you're talking about extremists or terrorists, their mentality is so different anyway. And so I think from the real objective effort here as to what this is all about, it doesn't work. Now if it doesn't work, then why are we doing it? Because we are so undermining our position in the world. We are signatories of the Geneva Convention. We were the leaders there of that. We are saying what to the world? That the Army Field Manual applies to our Army people, our armed services people, but the C.I.A. and all these Blackwater-type variations of militias and armies are unaccountable to what? That's not who we are as Americans, Bob. We're better than that. We don't need that. The world wants us to be better than that. We want to be better than that. We need to be smarter. Burning tapes, destroying evidence, I don't know how deep this goes. Could there be obstruction of justice? Yes. How far does this go up in the White House? I don't know.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just mention this. Reports say that Harriet Miers who was then a lawyer on the president's staff in the White House, found out about this and told the C.I.A., advised against doing it. And apparently they went against those orders but there's no suggestion she went -- told anybody else about it. Should she have told the president?

HAGEL: Well --

SCHIEFFER: Could she not have told the president? Is that possible?

HAGEL: I find it very difficult to believe that you have an issue like Iran, which is about as high up on the ticker tape of the president, the vice president, our senior cabinet members, and have them not informed of some variation of what was going on.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm talking about interrogation techniques.

HAGEL: Well I -- listen, you just asked...

SCHIEFFER: We'll get to Iran in a minute.

HAGEL: You just asked the Chairman a number of questions that relate back a number of years. So, this just didn't happen. This just didn't come up. This was rattling around the White House and in the Congress and the media for the last few years. And so it's hard for me to believe that senior members of the White House somehow --

SCHIEFFER: Didn't know about this.

HAGEL: Didn't pay attention to this or didn't know about it. And you have a counsel in Harriet Miers, or whoever it might be over there, not telling somebody about it. I mean, maybe that was what happened. And maybe that -- maybe they're so incompetent that that's what happened. But I would say that is gross malfeasance and incompetency if in fact that did happen.

SCHIEFFER: Senator, do you have any idea if there are other tapes?

ROCKEFELLER: I cannot comment on that. I simply cannot comment on that. And if there were other tapes, it would be very interesting to know do they still exist? Were some destroyed? Were some not? Which ones. But I do -- I have no information on that at all.

SCHIEFFER: So there may be other tapes. If there are, would you want to tell the C.I.A. this morning that perhaps it's best not to destroy them?

ROCKEFELLER: Bob, it's very curious to me that they -- and Senator Hagel and I were talking before the program -- you know, that they started this taping in 2002. And they stopped it in 2002. You know, and so all of this brouhaha has developed since then. And it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. And I really agree with what Senator Hagel said. I mean, he's a combat veteran. The F.B.I. agrees with what he says, that you -- that sometimes in fact you get the worst possible intelligence because if you're using enhanced techniques more dangerous...

SCHIEFFER: Torture.

ROCKEFELLER: Things of that nature, that would border on that, or be that, then they'll tell you whatever you want to know. And then sometimes they'll say, well, it works.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Let's take a break there. When we come back we've got to talk about this reverse in the intelligence community's position on what Iran is doing about nuclear weapons. We'll talk about that in a minute.

[Commercial Break]

SCHIEFFER: Back now with Senators Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Hagel. We were talking during the break. I take it both of you want the Congress to investigate this. You do not think there's a need for a special counsel? Is that right, Senator?

ROCKEFELLER: I don't think there's a need for a special counsel and I don't think there's a need for a special commission. It is the job of the Intelligence Committees to do that.

SCHIEFFER: You agree with that Senator Hagel?

ROCKEFELLER: I agree with the Chairman, absolutely.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Let's shift to this whole business about Iran. Here we have -- we've been told that Iran was building a nuclear weapon and the intelligence community issues this report that says we believe they actually stopped their nuclear weapons program four years ago. What's going on here Senator Hagel?

HAGEL: First, we have to understand that intelligence is not a tidy little sum of information wrapped up in a box handed over to members of Congress, or policy makers, or the president. It's a mosaic of many, many pieces. So it's difficult to start with. Difficult in a country like Iran, where we have no relationship. We have had no relationship since 1979. We don't have really any good means of being on the ground there. So that's a given. Now, the shift in results over the last two years has been rather dramatic as we saw. Both Jay and I have read the classified version. Most of the American people, or a good deal of our citizens have seen some of the unclassified. This is the product of 16 intelligence agencies coming together and agreeing generally on where we are. Now, that doesn't take away the fact that Iran is still a very dangerous country. And we know that through their actions, but it seems to me what this gives us here is some opportunity to engage now, which I've called for the last two or three years, with Iran.

SCHIEFFER: In talks.

HAGEL: In talks.

SCHIEFFER: But do you believe this report? I mean it's absolutely the opposite of what they've been reporting now for three years, or what the administration's been telling us, Senator Rockefeller, and in addition to that the report says they've stopped their nuclear weapons program but a lot of experts tell me that's just a part of the deal, that the important thing is they continue to enrich uranium and they have twenty-fold the amount of enriched uranium as they did, say, two or three years ago. Is --

ROCKEFELLER: They cannot reprocess plutonium, okay? I mean they have their limits. They have an energy thing. They have a nuclear thing, both of them involved enriched uranium but they have said they're going to stop it. And -- and what is the importance of the shift? The importance of the shift, I think, resides with Mike McConnell, the new Director of National Intelligence. We had 18 intelligence agencies, and they had what was called the famous stove pipes. They wouldn't share with each other, they wouldn't talk with each other. And we had to pass a law after 9/11 to say that the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. could talk for the first time. But I think what he did is he brought all these people together. He forced them to challenge each other. It's called red-teaming. He forced them to challenge their assumptions.

SCHIEFFER: So you accept this conclusion.

ROCKEFELLER: I do. I do. At the same time, yes, I do very much. And I think that at the same time Chuck Hagel is entirely right when he says that it does not mean that you sort of go to...sleep.

SCHIEFFER: Do you have any reason to believe that the time line, that Iran would have, for making a nuclear weapon has been changed in any way by this report? In other words....

ROCKEFELLER: Yes, according to the report, there's a general assumption that if they were to go back to get a nuclear weapon it would not occur until approximately the year 2015.

SCHIEFFER: Some people say that Iran may already have a design for a nuclear weapon, that it may have been given to them by A.Q. Kahn, the renegade Pakistani who gave such a design to Libya. Do you have any information to suggest that that may be true.

HAGEL: First of all let's recognize no one knows all the facts and everything 100%, with 100% surety. However, we know what we know based on the best intelligence we have. And that's also through a network of seamless relationships with other countries by the way, not just our country. And that's where we get a lot of our intelligence, especially on Iran. Now your question about the timing and intensity and so on. I accept what the N.I.E. has laid out. That doesn't mean things are shifting and changing today, as we sit here today. That seems to me to be all the more reason, in our own interest, to engage the Iranians to find out more and get a better understanding of what's going on using all the instruments of power that a great power has, the entire arsenal of intensity, of trade, of military operations.

SCHIEFFER: In other words we need to start talking with them.

HAGEL: We need to start talking with them.

SCHIEFFER: You agree with that, Senator?

ROCKEFELLER: I do. And all you have to do is look at North Korea. North Korea was an absolute impossibility as far as ever backing off their nuclear program. Chris Hale of the State Department and China started to put the pressure on. And now they've stopped and they're inviting Americans in to watch them take it apart. Their whole nuclear system apart. So in other words, diplomacy can work.

SCHIEFFER: Alright. Well we have to stop there. I wish we could go on. We'll be back in a moment with our political round table.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I guess the question is....

.....was there an investigation going on when the tapes were destroyed.

If there was no investigation then this is a whole lot of you know what.

Better ask Nancy Pelosi about this since she was read in on what was going on.

PJ - was thinking the same

Then - was is still amazing in regards to this whole story - the CIA  ADMITTED to what was done (destruction of tapes), something that the msm (Lsm) won't or can't understand, partly because THEY didn't break the story, and it goes against what they think about the administration - it isn't a secret, wasn't "hidden", and the losers who THINK they're journalists are reacting like spoiled little children.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

You know Ed...

Doesn't this amount to the equivalent of the CIA taking out the trash? For some reason the MSM thinks they must be privy to everything!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Doesn't this amount to the


Doesn't this amount to the equivalent of the CIA taking out the trash?

An intelligence agency keeping secrets!! Who'da thunk it???

How DARE they!!

MM - too bad that the

CIA CAN'T "take out the trash" - consider that rocky and peloony knew about what was going on, didn't say anything, and now act surprised! Seems the demolibs are more concerned about their power, and don't care that we're being protected OVERSEES (thank you all, in the military) and that there are people who try to find out who to KEEP the terrorists away (thank you all, who find out what the terrorists are planning) and the dumbo demolibs can take a leap, and we know it won't be of faith!

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Chuck Hagel

Obstruction of Justice would not apply to these tapes unless there was an ongoing criminal investigation in which the tapes may have been relevant.  

The fact that Hagel is pontificating about the CIA belies his silly statement "but the C.I.A. and all these Blackwater-type variations of militias and armies are unaccountable to what?"

Hagel's claim to fame is that he founded VANGAURD Cellular Systems.  He may have enough personal money not to care. However, you might as well count him as a Democrat.

It is nice that he is leaving the Senate. Even if the seat falls into Democratic hands, it won't make much voting difference.

Hagel is an "even

Hagel is an "even Republican."

With "even Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?

 

All I Can Say Is

Thank God for Bob Schieffer helping the Democrats to decide whether an investigation is warranted.  After all, they haven't had an investigation on Capitol Hill in so long, they're all getting a little rusty.  Besides, this will be one of those quick an easy jobs; there's only a couple of CIA interrogators and their boss, how long can that take?  Of course the MSM will help disseminate the names and photos of the agents involved, and pretend they don't know they're still "under cover" like you know who.  All this for the interrogations of two dirt balls who deserve to rot in hell.  Yet here we are, wringing our hands again, about torture and why we're above it, and the American people don't want their government using these tactics.  What a bunch of spineless cry babbies.

Clarification

"Of course the MSM will help disseminate the names and photos of the agents involved, and pretend they don't know they're still "under cover" like you know who. "

You forgot the part about the MSM finding out the names from "officials who requested anonymity because they are are not authorized to discuss the investigation with the media".

and don't forget

all the folks on the Security committees WHO  knew what was going on and DIDN'T say anything until it became politically expedient. demolibs, you can live without them.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

No offense but what other

"At that point Hagel presented two options, either the president is a criminal or an idiot:"

No offense but what other two options would there be? These are high value interrogations so the idea that the President would be "unaware" of either the interrogations themselves or the methods used, strains credulity. If he didn't know, what was going on, then he would be quite properly called and idiot. Now, me personally, I have NO PROBLEM WITH TORTURE. NONE. I know the difference between terrorist scum and a uniformed soldier from an enemy which should be afforded a certain amount of honor and repect in the form of the Geneva Convention. But Bush, imbecile in Chief has already BENT OVER on "torture", when an appropriate answer would have been, "Hey, we waterboard CIA agents and Special Ops personnell as part of their TRAINING you pantywaist handwringer, do you think we're torturing our OWN PEOPLE Brian Williams, you half a queer?" But that' s just me. Having reliquished the ground of "interrogation" to our liberal captors, it would have been pretty dumb for Bush not to know what went on. If he couldn't see this as a potential club with which they might BEAT him, then he IS pretty dumb.

 BTW. It isn't the CIA's disclosure of the tape destruction that is at issue, the issue is WHY the tapes were destroyed. And if you can't see that in as contentious a time as this is that this should have been handled better by Bush and co., then have some more Kool Aid. Bush should either have made the interrogations classified or not taped them. If a kid from Queens could see that the traitorous demoNcrats would be impaling themselves on dildos of feigned outrage, why couldn't the President? Big freaking' DUH. 

That he's neither. The

That he's neither.

The question of "knowing what was going on" was in regard to the destruction of the tapes.  

This whole thing is a trumped up nothing.  There's nothing for Bush to have worried about or known about.  There might have been IF the CIA had decided to publish the tapes, but we know that can't happen...

I wonder how much other stuff the CIA has destroyed that presidents haven't known about?

This is a straw dog issue that will blow away just like Valerie Plame's credibility.

Servants of the people

Hagel is ridiculous. His animus against Bush is downright vindictive. To try and pin this tag on the White House, instead of on the CIA (where it belongs), is offensive. The fact that CBS chose him to represent the GOP is another example of bias.

We do need to ask questions about this whole episode, but to frame this as a White House scandal is terribly unfair. The CIA is a bureaucracy that has been blessings and curses for Bush, and this has been a curse. I'm sure what everyone is thinking is that the CIA destroyed these tapes to avoid an Abu Ghraib. They probably didn't want the tapes, if shown, to inflame Islam as those prison pictures did. Of course, the Democrats want those pictures on the front page to embarrass Bush, never mind the damage it might cause for the country, and the CIA didn't want to give them the chance. The Democrats don't really care about the behavior itself. They're just infuriated that they lost the opportunity to embarrass Bush. They're stomping their feet like someone took away their rattle.

He's trying to pin it on

He's trying to pin it on the WH because that's where the "most bang for the buck" is with regard to media face-time.

I wish I could remember who the coloumnist was that talked about Republicans who, for some unknown stupid reason are always trying to placate the Democrats, saying all the things they want to hear, agreeing with them, trying for some unknown reason to convince them that they are not as bad as the Democrats think. Then, to prove it, they  shoot one of their buddies (figuratively).

I am so sick of Republicans who will suck up to the media and bash their President, and for what? A few minutes of air-time from the MSM.

Hagel is an embarrassment. And naive if he thinks the MSM's infatuation with him will last any longer than it takes them to move on to the next potential scandal. This is like jumping through hoops for the Black Caucus or black journalists, as if there were a snowball's chance in Hell that they might vote for them. They allow themselves to be manipulated. If Hagel thinks they will waste one decent word on him when he is no longer of "use" to them, he is sadly mistaken.

 

The media would like us to

The media would like us to consider Chuck Hagel as balance. Much like David Gergen was asked to be considered the "conservative" balance to Mark Sheilds on News Hour on PBS. Hagel and Gergen are the kind of "conservatives" the media can live with - the kind when Republicans were "moderate", a permanent minority - and knew their place.

I'd love to know the number

I'd love to know the number of times that Chuck Hagel (RINO, France) and John McCain (RINO, Mars) have appeared on Face the Nation, Meet the Press, CNN's Sunday program and leftist Stephanopoulos's program in the last six and a half years to regurgitate the far left's talking points.  The leftist hosts of those programs love, love, love having those two on their programs because Hagel and McCain sound identical to the hosts and the hosts' other guests.  Does anyone know the number of times that those two fools have appeared on the Sunday programs?  Also, how do those numbers compare to the number of times other "Republicans" have appeared on those programs?  Thank you.

Too many to count, because

Too many to count, because they are "mavericks" you know...going against the grain..."even Republicans."

may be a dumb question

Ok guys this may be a dumb question but what does RINO mean, I haven't been able to figure it out and now I am biting the bullet and asking.....please don't think any less of me

 

 

 

"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin

RINO

Republican In Name Only

There are no dumb questions, unless you count those from liberal trolls. :)

got it thanks alot and

got it thanks alot

and here's a shout out for the lib trolls then ......how many kids has Bush killed in his war for oil???

"Get off the phone you big dope!!!!!!!!!!" Mark Levin

Next question .

how many "girls" has bj clinton had, without the msm (Lsm) reporting their names?

Oh, wait, the msm (Lsm) doesn't report, they pass along demolib talking points, 'cause they DON'T know how to report.

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Yet another

"scandal" attempting to be manufactured by the left and their lap-dogs the MSM. Look at the timeline...interrogation happened and was taped (for training?) in 2002. Aggressive interrogation (torture) became an issue in 2005. Tapes destroyed to avoid "issues". the CIA is there for intelligence and prevention, not law enforcement. The fact that these techniques have yeilded spectacular results are proof that they do indeed work.

P.S. The protections in The Geneva Conventions apply only to unifromed military personel. Un-uniformed military and civilians acting as combatants get no protections. Therefore terrorists and "insurgents" are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

Inconvenient Truth

My fellow conservatives, the "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" is there are a lot of Republicans just like Chuck Hagel in the US Senate.  At least he's not running for re-election.  Therefore it's up to the Republican Party in Nebraska to see that we get a real Republican Candidate.  Don't blame the media here.  They didn't elect the guy.

Quite correct

The terms "republican" and "Conservative" are no longer synonomous. It's up to conservatives to elect conservatives, not simply the candidate that the Republican Party deems who's turn it is.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

To that, I would only add,

To that, I would only add, that the title of "Senator" seems to be a wedge that splits "Republican" and "Conservative" even further. What's in that bean soup they serve in the Senate dining room?

CN - it's

Jumping Beans! One sip and you jump to the left. (it'll take a minute)

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Wow. That's good enough for

Wow. That's good enough for me. You are fast, Fast Ed. :)

You're right, CWG...we can't

You're right, CWG...we can't blame the media. It's the desire of those "Republicans" to be loved and admired that makes them do what they do...then they revel in all the attention and TV time they get from the media; it makes them feel "important."

And Hagel can't be gone a moment too soon, and won't be missed in the least. What good are "numbers" in the Senate, if one of your own sleeps with the enemy most of the time?

Oh mother, we sure can blame the media

media bashing is the name of the game here, and it's soooo easy - find a problem, even when there isn't any, and the media will blow it all out of proportion.

The other thing, just finished watching Band of Brothers, and the dutch had it right, sleep with the enemy, and get your hair cut off and proof. Be kinda funny to see a bunch of rhinos with crudly cut hair cuts!

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Are you kidding? Don't blame the media? What are you smoking?

Of course you can and should blame the media.   The obvious and usual ploy is to have a interview with a liberal democrat and a liberal republican with the phony, transparent appearance that 'both sides' are being represented.   If this interview had been truly balanced, it would have had a true conservative Republican debating the liberal democrat instead of using the MOST LIBERAL senator to parade as providing balance.  How phony and typical of the main stream media.

Chuck Hagel is an

Chuck Hagel is an embarrassment.  To think this guy's ego was so big that he considered running for President!?!?!  Fortunately, he got a good read of the tea leaves and realized that he had zero support for a Senate reelection campaign this time.  I welcome his retirement, as I do Trent Lott's (and I encourage Spector, Collins, Snowe and Lindsay Graham to follow suit).  Much has been made of the fact that there are a lot of Republican Senate seats up for grabs in 2008...the likes of Hagel and Lott would have stunted Republican turnout yet again.  Unpopular incumbents don't stimulate turnout.  We don't need any more Linc Chafee-types weighing down the party again in 2008.  Good riddance.

  As someone who grew up

  As someone who grew up with the Republican minority perpetually wandering in the desert I have seen better congresses than when we've had Republican majorities.  Let's face it, most of us are Conservative not merely Republican.  But the last few years we've had many people who choose to run as Republican not because they shared our values but because they saw a district where Conservatism was desired and they only 'talked the talk'.  They didn't 'walk the walk'.  Many times we have worked against a Conservative democrat just because we automatically worked for the Republicans.  This has been to our detriment.  When we've had a nearly even split on the R's and D's but we've help elect people who work against our principles we end up with what we've suffered the last few years.  So if we want Conservatism we need to support it where we find it and not just elect labels.

Debbie Does Hagel

Debbie Schlussel has a great comment about the upChuck Hagel, the RINO in sheep's clothing.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
Today's Wall Street Journal details exactly why Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr.--then the CIA's National Clandestine Service--ordered the destruction of the video....

He did it to protect them from the Lynndie England treatment, in which a low level soldier took a huge fall for following orders that amount to nothing more offensive than a bunch of naked Iraqis in hoods while we're at war with them.

Predictably, the Republican Senate version of Dennis Kucinich spies a conspiracy at every turn:

"It's hard for me to believe that senior members of the White House somehow didn't pay attention to this or didn't know about it," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), a member of the Senate intelligence panel.

So glad he's retiring. Good riddance and not soon enough.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Isn't listening Cowchip Bob Torture

In looking at the above nonsense, you have 3 boobs complaining about Valerie Plame not being protected by the videos of her not being destroyed but released by Dick Armitage and Joe Wilson to Tim Russert.

This is EXACTLY what Val Plame's and Cowchip Bob's claim that she was not protected..........the CIA was protecting their own and now liberals do not want that either.

Okie doke folks I hope Hayden puts it that way to the next dufus Senator and MSM type and shuts this down.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

You know if someone had

You know if someone had yelled "CLUE!!!" they would have all ducked.

 

"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a wussy."
                                    Attributed to General Tommy Franks

Good ole Chucky is called

Good ole Chucky is called upon so frequently by the lib media to provide “balance” he should expect a call from Cirque du Soleil any day now.

By the way, I wonder what “ conservative”category the libs think he falls under, staunch or life-long?  

 

Hagel

Old, Retired and glad of it.

Hagel is such a POS he would cause me to vote for Shrillary and I've emailed his office telling him that so many times they probably trash them without looking at them.

 Easy now, that's crazy

 Easy now, that's crazy talking. :)

 

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.