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

Matthew Alexander on Cheney

I've written about Matthew Alexander in earlier posts, and wanted to share this new video from Brave New Studios featuring Matthew. In this interview, Matthew answers former Vice President Cheney's speech of last week. When Cheney states that those who say torture did not keep us safe and did not save lives are wrong, Matthew gives specific examples from his direct experience as a senior Iraq interrogator as to why, exactly, Cheney is the one who is wrong.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Chattering Class and False Dichotomies

What is it with the mainstream media? They set up these false dichotomies playing off Obama and Cheney as if it were a true debate. Obama is the sitting president. What he says matters. He made an extremely important policy speech yesterday that whether we liked it or not, explored the reasons behind his recent decisions regarding Guantanamo, the continued use of military tribunals, and his intention of continuing the practice of indefinite detention of some detainees. The fact that he is now referring to them as prisoners of war, the fact that he is now suggesting the creation of a new 'legal framework' designed with the cooperation of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches to ensure appropriate oversight does not change the fact that he is not only continuing the practices of the Bush Administration, but is in fact, extending them. This is important stuff.

So what does the media do? Every article and news show that discussed Obama's speech compared it to Cheney's speech right afterwards. Photos showed the two side by side. The media loves conflict and if there is none, they make some up. Cheney was on the attack, defending himself, preemptively blaming Obama for any future terrorist attacks, while Obama (rightly) explained that he was trying to clean up the messes left him by the Bush Administration. He would have been more successful if he had actually advocated a clear break and change in direction, rather than a continuation of some of its worst practices, but the media created a sense of conflict by featuring Cheney and giving him the airtime.

Cheney (and Gingrich et al) can give all the speeches they want, but the networks do not have to cater to them. Just as during the campaign they made no effort to report the veracity of what the candidates said ("...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. And I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."--David Gregory) the media continue to simply act as stenographers to those they consider news makers by giving them airtime and print space. They repeat what was said, give time and space to what they consider to be an opposing point of view--their false dichotomy--and assume that the people watching will then be able to determine who is right. Not for them to provide data with which to consider those opposing points of view. Not for them to actually provide opposing points of view from unbiased sources.

Consider who is out their speaking in support of Cheney. Rush Limbaugh. Now there's an unbiased viewpoint. Newt Gingrich. Now Newt is demanding an investigation of Speaker Pelosi, not because of the truthfulness or not of the use of torture--or enhanced interrogation. No, he is demanding an investigation of the strawman that he has built. According to Newt, the Speaker is corrupt and incapable of leadership because she has impugned the integrity of the CIA. Integrity. Something Mr. Gingrich should know something about. After all, he paid a $300,000 fine for lying to Congress during an ethics investigation after which he resigned his position--as Speaker--and his position in Congress.

And who else is making the rounds--and being given airtime--in support of Cheney's position? Who is an expert commentator and qualified to speak to the veracity of his words and actions? Who have the networks decided is the best able to debate on his side when they create a left/right discussion? Why, (daughter) Liz Cheney of course.

Let's see. In the past 9 days, (and never mind print media), Liz has appeared on:

• Morning Joe on May 12
• Live Desk on Fox on May 12
• On the Record on Fox on May15
• Fox & Friends Saturday on Fox on May 16
• This Week with George Stephanopolous on ABC on May 17
• Your World on Fox on May 20
• News Live on MSNBC on May 21
• Hannity on Fox News on May 21
• Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN on May 21
• America Morning on CNN on May 22
• Morning Joe on MSNBC on May 22 (and this time, for the whole hour)
• Good Morning America on ABC on May 22

And we continue to listen to them? We continue to give credence to these pundits and this chattering class as our village idiots tell us what is important, and who? The Bush Administration operated from fear. They created a climate of fear and continue to cultivate a sense of fear to avoid being called to account for their actions. The Republicans in Congress have a single agenda, NO. With no other plan, they spend their time building strawmen and pointing fingers away from the real issues. They hope that if they convince people that the real issue is terrorists running free in our cities, we will forget that they are the ones that created the climate that made them terrorists in the first place. Fortunately, we are smarter than that.

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

Dear Dick: Please take your daughter and go home. We're done.

Dick Cheney is all over the tv machines again (still) but this time, his daughter Liz is out there as well. Liz appeared on Morning Joe with (among others) Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post to debate her father's position on "enhanced interrogation." As is typical of people 1) accustomed to Fox News and 2) little support for their argument, Liz monopolized the debate, rudely interrupted Eugene every time he tried to talk, and when he tried to interrupt her to try to get a word in, she said - repeatedly - no, no, let me finish. As usual, she who talks loudest and longest wins. The guiding principal of the Bush White House and the Republican Party. Say it enough times, say it straight into the camera, and it becomes true. It becomes true either as a self-fulfilling prophecy, or because you have convinced people that it's true.

At the end of the conversation, another member of the panel, Mike Barnicle said:

Barnicle: Forget the legal niceties of legal or illegal. If he's the only one you have in your hand, then there's something seriously wrong with your intelligence capabilities. If you only have one guy who can give you that information?

Cheney: Exactly. That's exactly right. You know, Mike, that's a really important point, because that's where we were on Sept. 12, we didn't know anything about Al Qaeda -- well, I shouldn't say "anything." We didn't know very much about Al Qaeda.

Interesting point, and one that Dick Cheney has begun to make and one he said in his interview Sunday with Bob Schieffer and Monday afternoon with Niel Cavutto. "We didn't know very much about al Qaeda."

Hello? Can we all say bullshit? Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. They bombed two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, and bombed the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000. Because of the danger of al Qaeda, the Clinton Administration developed a detailed report on international terrorism, al Qaeda specifically, and a plan to deal with them. With 1 month to go before Bush took office, they decided not to take action against al Qaeda, but instead provide this report and detailed briefings to the incoming national security team.

According to Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, he was so concerned with how little help they were given as they came in by the previous administration, he decided to hold a series of 10 briefings on the subject for his successor and her deputy. As reported in TIME, Berger reports that he attended only 1 briefing, the 1 about al Qaeda (Condoleeza Rice denies his attendance at any of the briefings) and Richard Clark, the expert on al Qaeda presented a detailed report that included a plan for,

"the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime."

According to Rice and others in the Bush Administration, no such report was provided and they say that they were told (regarding al Qaeda) only that they should take a "more active approach." I remember seeing Richard Clark on several news programs after 9/11 discussing this report, and would highly recommend his book, "Against All Enemies: America's War on Terror" to read more about it. I can state from my own memory and from documents in the National Security Archive which you can read here that it is Rice that is not being honest. The actual memo from Clark to Rice regarding this briefing is here.

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

We don't want retribution. We want justice.

How long does this conversation go on? And at what point do the talking heads and Republicans finally catch sight of the mirror and see how foolish they really are?

Ex-vice president Cheney has stated that yes, we waterboarded. The recently released OLC memos listed 10 different procedures that certainly meet the definition of torture according to those who read them. The FBI Director was so certain that the activities described in those memos was torture that he refused to allow any employee of the FBI to participate. The recently released Senate Report states that torture occured. More documents state that two detainees were waterboarded over 200 times in a period of 1 month.

It's pretty clear that torture occured.

Eric Holder, during his confirmation hearings in February 2009 stated unequivocally that, "yes, waterboarding is torture."

Thus, I am stunned to hear Mr. Holder, the Democratic leadership, and President Obama dancing around the issue, continuing to use the phrase "enhanced interogation" and talking about the need for a thorough review, proper analysis, and complete understanding of everything that occurred before any decisions about prosecutions are made. President Obama states that pursuing this is retribution. What? Criminal prosecution is retribution? This, from a constitutional lawyer?

We do not want retribution. We want justice. We are not too busy. Congress had the time to impeach President Clinton. They had the time to investigate everything that the Clintons ever did including anyone who ever associated with them (and I would add, found no wrongdoing, ever - oh excuse me. President Clinton lied under oath about having sex). I think we can take the time to investigate the Bush administrations commission of war crimes.

This issue will not go away. We will not be quiet. As Americans, torture was done in our name and as such, we have the right to hold those responsible accountable.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k