Here we go gathering "facts" in May

There is a nursery rhyme which has long baffled people. Associated with nuts, as it is, May is not the time to collect them. And further on in the ditty, frost is not something associated with the weather in May.

In short, it makes almost no sense today, even if it had significance when it was first written. Anyway....

Matttbastard has collected a round up of commentary from around Teh Internets and various other sources on the CIA's destruction of tapes documenting the torture of detainees. But the best part is watching White House press secretary Dana Perino bob and weave around questions and then suggest that the first George Bush heard of them was "yesterday". Really, go to Bastard Logic and watch the video. We'll wait right here.

Yeah. What did you think about that? At least we know there is someone out "gathering"... something.

We've heard the "yesterday" argument before. First it was the NIE on Iran and now it's the destruction of documentary evidence which the CIA once said didn't exist and thus was not provided, as demanded, to congressional oversight committees and investigations.

Until the CIA admitted that they had destroyed them, the CIA's answer to questions about tapes documenting torture was, "What tapes?"

Well, Bush has another problem. Harriet Miers.

ABC News has learned that at least one White House official knew about the CIA's planned destruction of videotapes in 2005 that documented the interrogation of two al Qaeda operatives: then-White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Three officials told ABC News Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

Isn't that interesting. Once again we have George Bush, through his press secretary, telling us that he didn't know anything about them until "yesterday". But his White House counsel did, and she seemingly knew they were going to be destroyed.

We already know that the CIA briefed the Republican leaders of congressional intelligence committees.

In February 2003, the CIA says it told the leaders of congressional intelligence committees about the tapes and that it planned to destroy them.

But they didn't brief the president?!!

So, somebody has to hang for this and as the White House tries to shed the mantle of responsibility we see the scapegoat beginning to form. Scott Horton digs into the whole affair and tells us why plausible denial on the part of the White House won't work and who the scapegoats will be.

First, we have the opening volley—everything was disclosed and approved in advance. Even the oversight committees were briefed on this. Everything was kosher. So know we’re being told that they briefed Rockefeller and Harman, but not President Bush. Does anybody believe that for even a second? No, it’s not plausible. And all this relates to an issue that has involved the White House like no other issue since the Bush Administration began. The highly coercive interrogation program—the “Program”—was Dick Cheney’s baby. He lobbied the CIA to adopt it and turned to extraordinary measures to overcome their initial reluctance. (This is how we got the torture memoranda at Justice, after all). And let’s keep in mind that this is a White House in love with secrecy and the destruction of internal documents which might prove compromising. (Think: Dick Cheney and his visitors’ logs; think: Karl Rove’s missing emails, now put at 10,000,000 and counting).

But let’s go the next layer down, to CIA. Could a director of ops authorize the destruction of evidence wanted in a federal criminal case, in the face of a court order for their production all by his lonesome with no consultation and approval from above? We have the answer in the initial Hayden memo: these steps were done in accordance with the law and agency procedure, he says. So the answer to that question is that it certainly wasn’t just Rodriguez.

Then there is the reason given by General Hayden, Director of the CIA, for the destruction of those tapes - because they would reveal the identity of covert operators and place them and their families at risk of attack from al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Halifax for sale.

Who does Hayden think he's talking to? Does he really expect us to believe that the CIA, in a controlled interrogation environment, would actually capture the image of interrogating agents on video tape? That would be unbelievably stupid. I've seen loads of interrogation tapes and never once have I seen any part of the interrogator.

Further, if CBS, CBC, ABC and the film school down the street can obscure the voices and physical features of anyone they want to, in order to hide the identity of someone in a controversial documentary, why wouldn't the CIA be able to do the same? It's not new technology.

This has the potential to make the Watergate cover-up look like a nursery rhyme.