Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (480947)	5/14/2009 8:57:13 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575220

Bob Graham: I Wasn’t Told About Waterboarding Or EITs In My Briefing theplumline.whorunsgov.com Former Senator Bob Graham, who received a classified briefing on terror detainees during the same month in the fall of 2002 as Nancy Pelosi, was not briefed about the use of either waterboarding or enhanced interrogation techniques during the meeting, he claimed in an interview with me. Graham’s assertion — his first public comments since the release of the intelligence document detailing torture briefings given to members of Congress — directly contradicts the document’s claim that he had been briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques, or EITs. Graham is now the second Dem official to deny on the record the document’s contents and raises questions about its claim that Pelosi had been told, which she has denied. “I do not have any recollection of being briefed on waterboarding or other forms of extraordinary interrogation techniques, or Abu Zubaydah being subjected to them,” Graham told me by phone moments ago, in a reference to the terror suspect who had been repeatedly waterboarded the month before. Graham is the only other Dem aside from Pelosi to get briefed in 2002, so they are both in effect asserting that no Dem was briefed on the use of EITs that year. The date of the next briefing was in February 2003. Graham claimed he would have remembered if he’d been told about the use of torture. “Something as unexpected and dramatic as that would be the kind of thing that you would normally expect to recall even years later,” he said. The documents released late last week state that Graham, then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, were briefed on September 27, 2002 and given a “description of the particular EITs that had been employed” on Abu Zubaydah. The document says that Pelosi received a similar briefing earlier that month, though the letter accompanying the doc acknowledges that the CIA can’t vouch for its accuracy. Graham denied being told about EITs, and argued that the presence of two staff members at the meeting (as indicated in the records) would have made it “highly unusual” for the briefers to divulge such sensitive info. “I don’t recall having had one of those kinds of briefings with staff present,” he said. “That would defeat the purpose of keeping a tight hold” on the info. Graham, however, was circumspect on what was actually discussed, saying only that “the general topic had to do with detainee interrogations” but didn’t include any reference to EITs or waterboarding. Graham’s claims come as evidence remains mixed about what Pelosi knew and when. Though she has denied being told that torture was being used, the CIA docs claim that a top Pelosi aide was told about it in the spring of 2003. The CIA declined comment on Graham’s claim, but a U.S. official said: “CIA records indicate that several people, including former Senator Graham, were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.”

To: i-node who wrote (480947)	5/15/2009 7:03:21 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575220

(my wife doesn't allow Olbermann on our TVs, so I didn't get to watch the entire segment since I was caught). Funny. I understand her opinion on Olbie.

To: i-node who wrote (480947)	5/15/2009 7:31:05 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575220

Meltdown With Keith Olbermann! Imagine a news reader with the intellect of Ted Baxter combined with the blind hissing rage common on the left. If you regularly tune in to Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, you may remember that Olbermann was mysteriously absent from the show for three days at the end of April. But Olbermann didn't just "have the night off," as David Shuster, his fill-in, said on the air three evenings in a row. According to a source inside MSNBC, it was a bizarre temper tantrum on Olbermann's part that led him to storm off the set in protest. Even stranger: The drama was all Ben Affleck's fault. Olbermann was not scheduled to take a vacation at the end of April. But he ended up missing three shows: Friday, April 17; Monday; April 20, and Tuesday, April 21. It's what happened on April 16, though, that prompted Olbermann to exit MSNBC's studios in such a rage. According to a source at the network, Olbermann was livid when he learned that Rachel Maddow had booked Ben Affleck as a guest on her show. Olbermann, it turns out, had been interested in having Affleck on his show, too, and when he heard that Maddow's producers had secured the actor instead, he demanded that the interview be switched from Maddow's nine o'clock broadcast to his own an hour earlier. Maddow and her staff have been known to politely give in to Olbermann's whims in the past—it was Olbermann, after all, who helped bring Maddow to the network. This time, however, they didn't budge. (With ratings for Maddow's show a bit lackluster as of late, parting with an A-list celebrity guest isn't a decision to be made lightly.) Olbermann took the matter to senior management at MSNBC and NBC Universal and asked that they step in and "correct" the situation. That didn't happen, though, and Affleck went on Maddow's show as scheduled on Thursday, April 16. And Olbermann's three-day protest commenced the next day. Olbermann's temper—and tendency to hold grudges—is nothing new. When Dan Abrams was the host of the 9pm broadcast, Olbermann famously refused to "toss," or introduce, Abrams on the air, as he now does with Maddow. At Olbermann's insistence, five seconds of footage of the exterior of 30 Rock appeared between the two programs instead. What did Abrams do to earn Olbermann's enmity? Nothing, really, although one popular rumor floating around MSNBC at the time was that they'd both asked out the same woman a number of years ago and she'd accepted Abrams's invite instead of Olbermann's. For all anyone knows, this (Olbie and Rachel putting the moves on the same chippie) could be the reason for bad blood between them too. But Olbermann's unpredictable behavior can even put the colleagues he doesn't have a grudge against in an uncomfortable position. On April 21—day three of the stand-off—David Shuster was asked on Twitter about Olbermann's absence. His reply speaks volumes. Shuster doesn't actually state that Olbermann has the flu. He merely points out it's "flu/allergy season," a nice little hedge in case the real story was ever revealed. He then awkwardly adds that "KO is a great guy. He will return soon, I hope," indicating that, at the time, no one really knew when Olbermann would return. (Not to mention that whether or not Olbermann is a "great guy" or not doesn't make much sense in the context of having the flu.) The biggest question—and one no one can really answer except for Olbermann himself—is why having Ben Affleck on his show meant so much to him in the first place. The two have a past: Affleck spoofed the MSNBC host late last year, although Olbermann seemed to find the imitation flattering as you can see in this clip. It's much more likely that Affleck's role in this latest bit of drama didn't matter all that much, and this was just Olbermann attempting to once again force MSNBC to give in to his demands and satiate his ego. In which case, it was just another day at MSNBC. We called MSNBC this morning for comment. Our call was not returned. Update: Olbermann has issued an official statement on the matter: "That was my first opportunity to take even a long weekend to mourn my mother's death and deal with the many sad logistics subsequent to her sudden passing. The source of this story is a liar and those who spread it without seeking confirmation or reputation are beneath contempt." Our Response: We were saddened to hear of Olbermann's loss and found his tribute to his mother deeply moving. But if that was the reason Olbermann took time off two weeks later, we can't imagine why Olbermann wouldn't have simply said as much. Furthermore, we find it hard to believe one of his colleagues at MSNBC—a respected journalist, no less—would have attributed his absence to the "flu/allergy season" if Olbermann had made the perfectly understandable decision take a few days to mourn his mother's passing. cityfile.com