President Bush - Ongoing Serial Stupidity & Willful Ignorance (Or Is He Just Evil?)

PHOTO: mindfully.org

I've written 15 posts about torture and although I am deeply disappointed at the Obama Administration's decision to let Bush and Cheney get away with their actions leading up to and during the Iraq war, I had thought that the discussion had subsided into a low murmur.

Unable to keep his mouth shut, President Bush made a cavalier comment while speaking in Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday, saying that he did indeed have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded, and would do so again if it would save lives. Never mind that there is significant evidence, as discusssed by Matthew Alexander here, that details how waterboarding detainees made us less safe.

Extensive research, readily available to the President and much of it conducted by the FBI - experts at interrogation - and the Department of Defense, has been conducted on how to elicit useful information from people. As a counselor, it is my job to be able to get people to open up as I have discussed here that I have related to SERE training and torture.

Today, Dan Froomkin reports on the response of top military leaders to Bush's comments. Anger appears to be the universal response. They are appalled that Bush, still, has no conception of the illegality of his actions nor does he appear to care (although, why should he? apparently ex-Presidents are above the law).

"George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting."

There is no question that waterboarding is torture regardless of what has been discussed in the media in the past year or two. This country has imprisoned people and even executed people for waterboarding, and as recently as a few years ago, a sheriff's deputy in Texas was jailed for using waterboarding as an interrogation technique. More discussion here.

The article goes on to quote military leaders:

"Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years."

"As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life."

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn't appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. "I'd do it again to save lives."
But, Irvine said: "When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

"We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world's sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger -- and unnecessary danger."

The article continues by quoting other military leaders:

"James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, told HuffPost that the net effect of Bush's remarks--and former Vice President Cheney's before him--is 'to establish a precedent where it will be permissible to our enemies to use waterboarding on our servicemen in future wars."

"Cheney famously once agreed with an interviewer that a 'dunk in the water' was a 'no-brainer' if it saves lives."

What is it with these men? Don't confuse me with the facts? As I wrote about yesterday, this is willful ignorance in the extreme, and the serial stupidity of the Republican Party to the nth degree.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

SUN: 7:02PM Edited for duplicate section

MSM, False Equivalencies, and Liz Cheney

From Media Matters Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher, in an online Q and A:

non-election question: Given Liz Cheney's sudden prominence (man, nepotism in DC never ceases to amaze me), I'm curious as to why none of you reporters are asking her questions re: her recent comments about Obama's trip to Dover. She said that Bush routinely made the same trip and didn't "stage photo ops." A) she flat out lied - Bush never went to Dover, B) he couldn't have had photos taken because of the Pentagon policy at the time and C) Mission Accomplished, anybody? Ultimate photo op. What gives? Or is being related to Dick sufficient to protect her from questioned?


Michael A. Fletcher:If we begin questioning Liz Cheney that way, then we would have to do the same with conservative (and liberal) commentators who make all kinds of charges every day. It is their way of making a (great) living. Some comments, I like to think, sink under their own weight.

This illustrates one of my ongoing pet peeves which I have discussed before. The supposed "liberal" mainstream media uses false equivalencies, softball questions, and careful timing to ensure that the "news" we are fed is slanted to make the current administration look foolish and inept and the Republican Party (despite its massive almost 20% of the population identifying itself as such) as the arbiters of reason.

David Gregory in particular is guilty of perpetuating the MSM move to stenography rather than actual reporting with his statement regarding the role of the press corps in the run up to the Iraq war:

I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. "I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."

This is an example of something that happened years ago, but any sampling of the Sunday morning talks or the evening national news will show the same kind of "journalism." Panels sit around and discuss the issues of the day, carefully selected by the hosts. If the guest currently in the hot seat responds with something more controversial than the host is able or willing to handle, then it's time to move on. This past Sunday's Meet the Press with David Gregory kept the most controversial guest, Jon Krakauer, till the very end. He was then asked only a couple of questions about General McChrystal's role in the Pat Tillman case and the initial cover-up - discussed now because of McChrystal's current position in the news - and when Krakauer provided fairly damning answers, Gregory immediately wrapped it up. Great journalism. Tough interviewing. Oh wait. It's not his role.

Back to Liz and the Washington Post. The biggest question? Why are we seeing Liz Cheney on our tv machines at all? Her claim to fame? She is the daughter of the ex vice-president. Period. She did have a job at the State Department, but so does my cousin. And so do thousands and thousands of other people. Liz's job wasn't even particularly high up or particularly important. She oversaw a unit within a bureau that was one of eight managed by one of the Under Secretaries. I used to work at one of the PAC-10 universities (meaning it's huge). I managed the administrative functions of a unit within a division under one of the Vice Presidents, so I had one less layer between me and the top. Was I important? Absolutely not. Could I speak for the University? Absolutely not.

The next question? Why this false equivalency? A reporter hears an answer that is demonstrably false and shrugs because it will "sink under its own weight?" If they have to question every commentator, then why not? If their way of making a living is to lie, shouldn't they be called on it? Asked to back up their claims? Do slander and libel laws mean nothing anymore? Is journalism now simply reporting he said she said? It used to be gathering facts and examining what people said for truth and shining a light on what was going on behind the scenes so that the viewers and readers that did not have the kind of access that reporters have could know what was going on. That is the whole point behind the 1st Amendment and why the Founders put it first in the Constitution. 

What Liz talks about when she speaks about terrorism and the Bush Administration and foreign policy (and the return of fallen soldiers at Dover Airforce Base) is hearsay or conjecture at best. More likely, her comments are disinjenuous statements made to enhance her father's image, promote her own agenda, and belittle the Obama Administration.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Lanny Davis Changes His Mind

Lanny Davis, counsel to President Clinton has changed his mind. An interesting position to take, considering his history, but still, better late than never I suppose. He says in his blog, posted on "The Hill."

"An indictment, of course, is only an accusation of criminal conduct. Mr. Cheney must be presumed innocent until a jury of his peers finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many people still think, and I was among them until recently, that it would be better not to put the country through the divisive and backward-looking experience of seeing a former vice president on trial for crimes committed while in office. But given Mr. Cheney's decision to publicly attack the president on the subject, perhaps we have no choice but to take Mr. Cheney up on his challenge."

And what, exactly, was seeing a sitting president on trial if not divisive? The majority of the country was not interested in seeing the President impeached. The majority were not interested in Watergate or the many other -gates, and were appalled when Kenneth Starr released his report which was written not to show wrongdoing, but rather to embarrass the President. After years and millions of dollars, President Clinton was convicted of perjury for lying about having sex--a question that we, quite frankly, had no right to ask. All of that, after all the money spent investigating every aspect of their personal and business lives, including that of their friends and associates, the Clintons were found to have committed no crime, broken no ethical code, and participated in no conspiracy to commit a crime.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration has lied us to war, violated the Geneva Conventions, U.S. Code, the Constitution, and Vice President Cheney has, since leaving office, gone on tour proclaiming the rightness of his torture program. We don't even need to investigate. Our new Attorney General in his confirmation hearings stated that yes, "waterboarding is torture." Vice President Cheney, and many others, have stated that yes, we waterboarded detainees--or in Cheney's words, "high-value detainees" which somehow makes it better.

The historical record shows that we have prosecuted--and executed--others for waterboarding. The Japanese after World War II, our own soldiers during Vietnam, and a sheriff's deputy in Texas. We have no doubt that we did then, commit torture, no matter what you decide to call it. The Republicans try to change the subject and say it's about saving lives, saving the country, although we now have evidence that is not true. We have evidence that more information is gained through standard interrogation techniques; that torture elicits lies.

We know now that torture was most likely used to justify--after the fact--going to war with Iraq. The Republicans try to change the subject and say that high-ranking Democrats knew about it. And this matters, how? It becomes less a crime, how? If it is necessary it is not criminal, why?

Keep talking Mr. Cheney. Keep talking.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

WaPo Facilitates Push Polling, Again.

Well. Can't get the American people off the subject of torture? Build a strawman. Instead of discussing whether or not Bush/Cheney were correct in their tactics, argue about who knew what, when (specifically, Speaker Pelosi). Don't like the results of the polls that say most of the American people want prosecution of those who tortured and those who approved the torture? Change the polls.

Resurgent Republic who I don't want to link to, just add the dot com yourself, has established itself as a new player in the Washington polling game. Building on the success of push polling in the 2000 election cycle, they are a group of hardcore Republicans including Hayley Barbour, Mary Matalin, and others, who seek to reframe the torture debate by returning to the use of 'enhanced interrogation' and once again providing stenography services to the mainstream media. Chris Cilliza at the Washington Post The Fix disappointingly wrote extensively of these latest poll results - claiming 53% overall felt such tactics were justified compared to 34% - without bothering to discuss the actual poll itself.

Remember, poll results are useless unless you know 1) who was polled, 2) how many were polled, and 3) the questions asked.

Consider this question.

"Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means."

"Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11."

The first part includes the word torture. The question uses inflammatory, negative terms - undermine, hurt, endanger troops, and then goes on to tell us that they 'yield little or not useful information.'

The second part does not use the word torture. It uses words that are not inflammatory but uses words meant to make us feel good - exceptional, protect, justified, innocent, and then appeals to our emotions by referencing the lives lost on 9/11.

This is called push-polling. You are presented with 2 choices - good or bad, right or wrong that appeal to your emotions. The question is framed so that there is only one possible "right" answer if you are not a monster. Neither address the issue at hand, that being: various elected officials including Dick Cheney have acknowledged that the used of torture, sometimes called enhanced interrogation to make us feel better about it, was used. Do you believe that investigations should occur into who is responsible? Or, something along those lines.

The group at Resurgent Republican are long-term Washington insiders, experienced campaigners and experienced pollsters. They know how to write a poll to get the results they want, knowing full well that people tend to follow the polls. People don't like to take a stand on their own. If they think most of the country believes in something, they are more likely to believe that as well. If they've been uncertain, a well-designed push-poll will push them write over the edge. The above question is one used in the poll Cilliza cites and is the least toxic.

A 'good' polling question is a simple statement, usually based on something in the news that the subject is likely to know about, and is written in a way that does not appeal to the subject's emotions. Loaded words are never used in a properly prepared poll unless - as in Cheney's use of enhanced interrogation - you have a pre-determined result to achieve and must design a poll to elicit the answers that you seek.

The media, again, is not doing its job when it simply reports the results of a poll like this without questioning the methodology. The only information Cilliza included in his article is that the poll included "critically independent" voters. But how many people were polled? Where were they from? How were they selected? What stratification process (if any) was used? Remember - percentages are meaningless numbers if you don't know how large a sample was used. Sixty percent of 5 people is still 3.

Once again, the mainstream media perpetuating the serial stupidity of our fellow citizens as they swallow unquestioningly what the Republican Party wants fed to them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism?

Obama's Long War Against Cheneyism? is worth the read and presents a perspective that although is one that I'm not sure I agree with in its entirety, is one that I hope is true, that I want to be true. Andrew Sullivan has taken Obama's recent decisions - many of which I have slammed in these pages, as have many progressives - and offers a view of Obama that, "...reveals a cunning we miss at our peril."

In discussing Cheney and his supporters, and their ownership of the 'war on terror,' Sullivans says:

"They have no shame and no ethical boundaries. And so the only truly profound way to defeat them and what they represent is to show that a humane ruthlessness is still possible in the fight against al Qaeda - which remains a threat rather than a phantom."

He analyzes why he believes Obama retained Gates, co-opted Huntsman, and chose McChrystal and suggests that by keeping the best of Bush's choices,

"...Obama is coopting the best of the Bush legacy, while separating it from the callow cynicism of the Cheney-Rove-Kristol axis."

"Cheney is taking the torture bait from Obama even as Obama refuses brilliantly to take the terror bait from Cheney. Obama is resisting the red-blue reductionism of the past while forging a new and powerful center. And the more Cheney and Kristol and Limbaugh posture as the future of the GOP, the worse they will do and the more likely it is that more sane and sensible conservatives will eventually fight back."

It has been clear for some time that although Obama is clearly making decisions that appear to break campaign promises, some of which appear to go even further than those of Bush particularly in the area of the 'war on terror,' he is too smart not to have a plan. President Bush was a puppet, at least in the early days. Despite his Ivy League degree, he did not have the intellectual capacity nor the critical thinking skills to make informed decisions. He was the first to say that he made decisions based on what he felt in his heart.

Is this thesis presented by Sullivan the answer then to the choices Obama is making? I don't know. Sullivan certainly has the credentials to support this theory and it is a very comforting one. Check it out and let me know what you think.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

Let's Lie Our Way to War

As a counselor, I know a little bit about psychology and interviewing. I make no claims to be any kind of expert, particularly on torture or enhanced interrogation, but I do know that the essence of counseling is establishing a relationship with my client.

What is the purpose of counseling? To help the client reach the solution to whatever problem has brought them to me. It is not for me to advise them, to tell them what to do, or even to tell them what the problem is. My values are not theirs, my opinions my own. Our feelings and emotions are often buried very deep and what we identify first (or second) is often not what is really at issue.

The counselors job is to create an environment in which the client feels safe, in which they can explore feelings and experiences that are too strong to deal with alone. Perhaps to re-write the story and this time, come out on top. Perhaps to talk through a problem and explore the consequences to potential solutions. Who knows what is going to happen when a client walks through that door, but it is said, and confirmed in numerous studies, that regardless of training, the act of simply listening - truly, actively listening - is enough to facilitate healing.

Working with victims of abuse, I see clients who have shut down. People often wonder why women stay with men who abuse them, not realizing that the primary abuse is not the physical violence, but rather the assault to the sense of self. Women who are abused are often isolated, cut off from friends and family. A slow and gradual erosion of confidence has taken place that paralyzes their ability to make a decision, to take action. Women who are abused rarely have resources. They rarely have access to money, cell phones, transportation, or the will seek them out. I have met upper-middle-class women who turned over their paychecks to their husbands, who received the grocery money in cash and had to return with the receipt and change. Women who when attending a social event for other women - a Tupperware party or shower - had their husband drive them. Many said "how sweet," when it was really another facet of control. It takes, on average, at least 6 episodes before an abused woman leaves for good. The triggering factor is often when the violence is finally turned on the children.

The point to the above, is that violence and emotional isolation causes the psyche to shut down. The individual feels paralyzed, helpless, without resources, and totally incapable of making independent decisions. Of course I am generalizing with a very broad brush, however, to understand the function of waterboarding, you must first understand the process in which interrogation works.

Countless studies and testimony of experts have shown that empathy, compassion, and relationship-building are essential components to successful interrogation. The FBI is expert at this and trains their interrogators thoroughly to be interrogators. The CIA does not. Why do you suppose that the waterboarding ordered by the Bush White House was conducted by the CIA and by CIA contractors and not by the experts already well trained by the federal government? Even military intelligence officers receive more training, yet the waterboarding was conducted by two psychologists who reverse engineered the training provided in the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape SERE Program used to train military officers in survival tactics.

The fundamental problem, is that the waterboarding did exactly what it was designed to do. Unfortunately, we have two men, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, who did not understand conceptually the purpose for training our soldiers in the SERE program including waterboarding under controlled, extremely brief, circumstances.

Knowing something is controlled, for training, and to help save your life should you be captured is very different emotionally than knowing that something is being done to you by your enemy. The enemy does not care about you. You know they are breaking international law by the very fact that they are engaging in the very techniques that are happening to you, so why should you feel anything except intense, overwhelming fear of death?

Because our soldiers were waterboarded during the Korean War, this training was provided so that the soldiers could learn how to respond to torture. Remember; empathy, compassion, and relationship-building build trust. Physical violence and emotional abuse cause fear and cause the individual to shut down. Soldiers who go through SERE Training are trained to shut down when tortured. When waterboarded, the goal is to become so fearful that you will say anything to make it stop, to lie.

Therefore, when a soldier is waterboarded, shuts down, and lies, he or she has accomplished the goal of the SERE training. Why then, would Bush and Cheney expect a different result? When they were receiving successful, actionable intelligence through standard, relationship-building interrogation techniques, what did they hope to accomplish by doing something designed and guaranteed to elicit false confessions? Why did they demand that these men be tortured time after time after time, sometimes 6 times in one day, when they had already cooperated and established relationships with their interrogators? Why did they bring in these outside contractors to provide "harsh enhanced interrogation" when they had everything they knew?

One reason. One reason only. We had to go to war with Iraq. We had to depose Saddam Hussein. That was the only acceptable solution. On 9/11, there was already talk of Iraqi involvement (strange considering that the highjackers were, for the most part, Saudi nationals and that the only plane allowed to fly that week was one used to pick up members of the Saudi royal family and take them out of the country. hmmmm.) Interesting. That week, and we didn't yet know for sure who was responsible. We just knew though, that it was Bin Laden and Iraq.

Doubt me? Go pick up a copy of the 9/11 Commission Report.

An aide to Saddam Hussein, captured several months after 9/11 - a prisoner of war, by the way, not a "terrorist detainee" - was very cooperative and provided a lot of good information. Unfortunately for him, he didn't say the one thing the White House needed him to say. So, he got to experience some of those non-torture, "we had to do it to keep us safe" enhanced interrogation techniques, including 17 hours in a coffin.

Want to know what he finally had to say? You betcha. Despite our intelligence services all saying it wasn't true - then and later - he said that yes, despite the enmity between Hussein's Baath Party and Bin Laden's jihadists, there was an operational link between the two.

Yay! War! Get to go avenge daddy! (Remember, Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate Bush I). The 2 men who knew nothing, absolutely nothing about service, got to send our men and women to their deaths and kill tens of thousands of others because they wanted to.

Bush joined the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam and even then, could not fulfill his contractual obligations. Cheney received 5 deferments because he "had other priorities." What cowards. Too afraid to serve themselves, too afraid that the next attack might actually hit its target (remember all the 'undisclosed locations' and that vacant thousand-yard stare? - 'My Pet Goat'?), they could only prove their manhood by playing war. To our cost.

To our cost.

Thanks for stopping by.Come back soon.
k

UPDATE:

I should perhaps have clarified that the torture of Saddam Hussein's aide occurred after we were already at war with Iraq (hence his status as a prisoner of war). The purpose therefore was a retroactive search for justification for war. No WMD's, remember?

Cheney: Must Create that Iraq/Al Qaeda Link

So here's the thing. This whole conversation, discussion, whatever, about torture, enhanced interrogation, has become totally polarized. Never mind the Geneva Conventions and other treaties that the United States is a signatory to. Never mind federal legislation that regardless of treaty, makes the use of torture illegal. Never mind our Constitution, that regards torture as out of bounds (cruel and unusual punishment anyone?).

But, we have The Right saying that sometimes, depending, if necessary, it's okay. We have some on the right saying that some techniques - regardless of hundreds of years of precedent - aren't really torture. We have some on the right saying that the definitions commonly accepted aren't really good definitions, and that they get to decide what torture really means - and waterboarding ain't it.

Then, we have those on The Left who are adamant that as a country of law, there are no situations, ever, in which torture is legal. That no matter how you try to dress it up or change the verbiage, enhanced interrogation is just another term for torture, and torture is illegal.

It has become a left/right issue. Or so it seems. But it's not. When did law become political? When did enforcement of the law become an issue of left or right rather than right or wrong? When did enforcement of treaties and law become an issue of who was currently resident in the White House?

What is totally awe inspiring - and not in a good way - is the total misunderstanding of what exactly is meant by waterboarding when used in the context of Dick Cheney and the total snowjob that he is in the process of perpetrating on his party and this country.

Cheney just might succeed, even though the Bush Administration and all those currently riding on this bandwagon of "waterboarding good" have completely and entirely missed the point. Waterboarding, their chosen technique, was reverse engineered from the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Program used to train some of our service men and women.

Please stop for a moment and consider this.

If waterboarding is so necessary to the continued safety of this country, why then, was it not used during the second term of the Bush Administration? Why then, is President Obama's decision to cancel the "enhanced interrogation" program largely, at this point, symbolic? Granted, it is also necessary to ensure that it is not re-instituted at some future point, however; if it must be done, and works, and provided useful, actionable information essential to the safety and security of the United States, why was it used so infrequently?

It is becoming more clear every day that the waterboarding that was done was initiated by Cheney, was used not just on "detainees," but also on prisoners of war. One prisoner in particular was a close aide to Saddam Hussein. Why was he waterboarded? Despite providing useful, cooperative information, he failed to provide information about the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was necessary to justify going to war against Iraq. If this suggestion currently beginning to percolate turns out to be supported by fact, (and I would suggest that we all remember Saddam Hussein's attempt to have Bush I assassinated and Bush II's desire to avenge daddy),not to mention the Project for a New American Century which you can read about here, then that would make President Bush and Vice President Cheney not only guilty of war crimes, but guilty of conspiracy to start a totally unnecessary war which to date has killed over 2,000 American soldiers and how many tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Cheney: "I'd Have to See" (Being Above the Law and All)

I took the weekend off for mother's day (hope yours was great!) and just had a chance to watch Cheney's performance on yesterday's Face the Nation. What a guy. Rush Limbaugh, in the Christian Science Monitor pays Cheney back for his shout out (Cheney said that he preferred Rush over former colleague Colin Powell since Powell voted for Obama) by saying of the interview, here:

"He doesn’t need the money,” Limbaugh said. “He has no further political ambitions. He is not hot for interns. He is not a torture freak. He knows that he is toxic and despised by the drive-by media and the Democrat party and the left in this country.

“What motivation does Dick Cheney have to go out and say these things?” he asked. “Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by national interest? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by love of and for his country? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is speaking from his heart and is not speaking politically?”

No Rush. Cheney is motivated by fear. Fear drove him for the past 8 years, and fear is driving him now. A different kind of fear, but fear nevertheless. Then, it was fear that al Qaeda would get him, and now, it's fear that his crimes will out.

Cheney continues to bash Obama's release of the OLC torture memos, ending the use of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques, and adds to previous complaints by adding that cooperating with foreign governments' prosecution of Bush administration officials who worked with us to operate these programs add to "...that whole complex of things that I find disturbing..."

Cheney complains at length and quite vehemently that if the debate is going to occur, the entire constellation of information must be debated. He states that, "... 6 weeks ago I requested 2 memos written by the CIA that lay out the successes of those policies ... they [the Obama administration] have no qualms putting things out that can be used to be critical of Bush policies ..." but not things that will be supportive of their side. Two whole memos. Wow. Out of 7 years and how many reams and reams of paper? Two. We all know the government. Everything in triplicate. They live on paper, and Cheney can remember two whole memos to support his belief that 'enhanced interrogation' techniques saved us from further terrorist attacks. Okay.

When asked if he truly believes that we are more vulnerable now without these programs, that so many others say that it isn't true, he says, in effect, that if we don't use these programs, then we're willing to sacrifice American lives rather than run an effective interrogation program.

Excuse me? Exactly how many American (and Iraqi and Afghani and Pakistani not to mention all of our allied nation's citizens) lives have already been sacrificed?

Cheney is asked if he has any regrets. He says that on Jan 20, 2001 when he took the oath of office and said that "we're going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, this was exactly what was needed to be done."

I've heard him say this part several times. "Protect and defend the United States." The only problem? That isn't the oath that he took. It isn't the oath that President Bush took. They promised to protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, they raped it.

When asked if he would talk to Senator Leahy's committee, he said yes. When told that Senator Leahy expected him to appear under oath, Cheney said, "Well,I'd have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent that we'd be setting."

And doesn't that just say it all? "I'd have to see." And that's what he and Bush did for 8 years. They cherry-picked our Constitution. Two frightened little boys who had done everything they could to avoid Vietnam and who came close to being attacked on 9/11 and were terrified that they might be again. Two little boys who had all these big boy toys. I bet that they were both bullies when they were little. They had no idea that the Democrats would win the White House and Congress and let loose their secrets.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

David Broder - Stop Scapegoating?

Today, David Broder wrote an editorial in the Washington Post Stop Scapegoating:Obama Should Stand Against Prosecutions

Like many (most?) these days, Mr. Broder has forgotten the part in the Constitution that explains the three branches to our government—the legislative, the judicial, and the administrative, and why. He has also forgotten that in addition to having three branches, the importance of maintaining a wall between the judicial and administrative branches. He states,

One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.

It’s been so long since we’ve had that wall, that President Obama’s involvement in the discussion of investigation and prosecution of torture has seemed reasonable and normal, and most people continue to claim that the Bush Administration’s use of torture was a reasonable response to 9/11 and a policy decision. Thus, any response by the Obama Administration—including from the Dept. of Justice—is a policy difference: a political decision based on differences in policy.

Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me. [emphasis added]

In all the discussion amongst all the Washington pundit class, this is probably the most amusing statement I have heard recently. Of course, Mr. Broder, the Dean of the Pundits, the coolest, calmest, most reasoned head of the punditry, is the wise man on the mountain who is looked to to provide the voice of reason when all about him have been reduced to a chattering class.

Tell me Mr. Broder. When has Mr. Bush ever been bound to say, that was my policy, I was the president? When has Mr. Bush ever said, I was wrong, I accept responsibility? When asked if he regretted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Mr. Bush replied that he regretted that they hadn’t been found. When asked if he regretted the delay in responding to Hurricane Katrina, he stated that they saved 30,000 people off the roofs of houses. He refused to explain why early warnings were ignored, why response was late, and limited. And why, years later, the majority of the funds appropriated for Katrina relief were still not spent? He has, to this day, not ever, not once, said, “I’m wrong, I made a mistake, I’m sorry.” About anything. Ever.

And you expect him to be a man of honor? To think of those who served under him? Take off your blinders Mr. Broder. His actions speak quite loud enough, thank you very much.

Secretly, right before the inauguration, he gave secret memos to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove (and who knows how others) forcing them to claim executive privilege should they be called to testify before Congress. A privilege, by the way, that Harriet Miers at least, knew wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. And more telling, prior to leaving office, he refused to give Presidential immunity to anyone for committing or authorizing acts of torture. He could have, and could have very easily. Why didn’t he. Oh yeah. If he did, then he would have had to admit “we do not commit torture” was a lie. He told a lot of lies, but that was one of the few where he looked right into the camera and very firmly, clearly, and loudly, stated a declarative sentence that could in no way be spun or later massaged into meaning something else.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k