If it's "beyond belief", then it's probably not true:
In the LA Times today, Josh Meyer writes about a subject that's been bouncing around in my head for the past couple of weeks but never quite made it onto the blog: why did we videotape only two interrogations of al-Qaeda subjects in the months after 9/11? [...]
... doesn't it seem almost beyond belief that we wouldn't videotape every interrogation we did and then study the tapes endlessly for clues?
Yup. If you substitute "not true" for "beyond belief" you get:
It's not true that we [the CIA] wouldn't videotape every interrogation.
Taking the two negatives out, and cleaning up the line, you get:
The CIA videotaped every interrogation.
That sounds right. Okay, maybe not every
interrogation, but nearly so.
It would only make sense, with a shortage of linguists, to record all foreign language interrogations so that subject and area analysts could review the results.
Suggesting that only two interrogations were taped is absurd on its face.
One would hope that Congress would now understand that they must request the recordings of interrogations so that there can't be a claim that the tapes weren't specifically requested.
Or, alternately, we only *saved* two videotapes of interrogations because those two were the money sessions, where the big fish coughed up everything.
Or, alternately, those were the only two waterboarding sessions and were specially videotaped for that reason.
It's foolish to assume that the CIA is telling the truth about anything. Of course they taped every interrogation.