leaving him severely burned and blinded in one eye. here now welcome back to the story, sergeant bartlett. good to see you tonight. thank you so much for being here. it was may of 2005, just so you know. martha: we stand corrected. so you feel very strongly that this is the wrong message. why? i think mother teresa said it best. the fruit of love is service. my family fought for this country and served this country under this flag since the birth of this country. this is my grandfather s flag, e broke a back down the academic has back in the coal mines and walked with a cane. he threw the cane in the yard and signed up the next day. s sons that i m with him.
cable? but i knew that the lawyers had been consulted in a meeting and consulted over many times over three years. in may of 2005 mr. rizzo reports i told jose and his chief of staff, that was you, is that correct? i can t recall if i talked to them separately or together, they were crestfallen because they were now on notice that the dni, two successive white house counsels and the vice president s top lawyer had weighed in strongly against destroying the tapes. do you recall that conversation? senator, i don t recall that specific conversation however, i was aware that there were some objections and that is why jose regarding some objects, those are very straightforward prohibitions by your superiors to not destroy the tapes, was it not? senator, i don t recall that specific conversation. but you do know and mr. morel in the report which has been released says something similar. he said the record is clear that
times over three years. in may of 2005, mr. rizzo reports i told jose and his chief of staff, that was you, is that correct? i can t recall if i talked to them separately or something. they were crest fallen because they were now on notice the dni, two successive white house counsel s and vice president s lawyer i don t recall that specific conversation. i was aware there were some objections and that s why jose was going to go back to the director. those are very straight forward prohibitions to not destroy the tapes, were they not? senator, i don t recall that specific conversation. but you do know mr. morell in the report that has been released says something similar. he said the record is clear that mr. rodriguez, i presume you, were aware that two white
been consulted in a meeting and many times over three years. in may of 2005, he reports i told the chief of staff, was that you. they were crest fallen because they were now on notice that the dni, two successive white house counsels and the white house lawyer weighed in strongly against destroying the tapes. do you recall that conversation? i don t recall that specific conversation. however, i was aware that there were some objections, and that is why the jose those aren t some objections. those are very straightforward prohibitions by your superiors to not destroy the tapes, were they not? senator, i don t recall that specific conversation. but you do know, and mr. morel in the report which has been released says something similar. he said the record is clear that mr. rodriguez and i presume you
will cause a train to go on the ground, something wrong with the track, something wrong with the equipment, something wrong with the way the train is handled. train handling, think of frankfurt junction, may of 2005 in philadelphia. something wrong with the equipment, think of the train that derailed into the pass of an oil train in north or south dakota a couple of years ago. those are the kinds of things that will cause a train to go on the ground. what ntsb and the railroad, amtrak are going to do, they ll go where the train stops, work their way backwards and find out where the train went on the ground. this is new track and new service. that track had to be inspected. so could it have been a rail br break underneath the train, something wrong with a wheel crack or an axle break as it s going there, i ve heard reports