William Rivers Pitt on TruthOut has a theory about why Dick Cheney is all over the TV spouting his version of "keeping us safe" and criticizing Obama for making us less safe.
In short, Pitt says Cheney is scared of even worse revelations coming out that will result in universal damnation of him, even possibly prison time.
Talking about waterboarding is safe; it's the things that were done that haven't come out yet, especially in the "black hole" prisons, the foreign prisons we sent some detainees to, and the contract thugs that took over the interrogations from the FBI and CIA.
Cheney wants us to keep talking about waterboarding and hopes we won't begin to look behind that screen and start hearing about the murders, the rapes, and prisoners so injured by interrogations and left to die in their cells.
That would bring such universal damnation that Obama would be forced to allow full investigation -- and Dick Cheney might very well wind up in prison.
The full story is here. TruthOut is definitely a liberal blog, but it is by no means a wild, conspiracy obsessed rant.
http://www.truthout.org/051509J?n
Ralph
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Colin Powell's chief of staff backs Begala
Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff and a Republican, has put out a rebuttal to Cheney's claims that are similar to Democrat Paul Begala's.
He makes an additional zinger of a point: As soon as the Abu Graib photos came out in the spring of 2004, the whole torture enterprise came to a screeching halt. No one did anything for fear of consequences for themselves.
So, when Cheney claims that Obama's forbidding this form of interrogation is endangering the nation, exactly that happened under Cheney's watch in 2004 -- and continued for the remainder of the second Bush/Cheney term. If it endangers us now, it must have also endangered us for the past four years.
A second zinger point from Wilkerson: it's true that there have been no further attacks on American soil since 9/11; but more than 4,200 American troops have been killed in Iraq since 9/11, a war that should not have happened and that Dick Cheney -- probably more than any one single other person -- is responsible for.
So, even giving him the right to claim he kept Americans safe at home, he more than offset that by making American troops very unsafe in Iraq.
Thanks to Mickey Nardo for calling my attention to this. The full text of Wilkerson's article is at:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/
Ralph
He makes an additional zinger of a point: As soon as the Abu Graib photos came out in the spring of 2004, the whole torture enterprise came to a screeching halt. No one did anything for fear of consequences for themselves.
So, when Cheney claims that Obama's forbidding this form of interrogation is endangering the nation, exactly that happened under Cheney's watch in 2004 -- and continued for the remainder of the second Bush/Cheney term. If it endangers us now, it must have also endangered us for the past four years.
A second zinger point from Wilkerson: it's true that there have been no further attacks on American soil since 9/11; but more than 4,200 American troops have been killed in Iraq since 9/11, a war that should not have happened and that Dick Cheney -- probably more than any one single other person -- is responsible for.
So, even giving him the right to claim he kept Americans safe at home, he more than offset that by making American troops very unsafe in Iraq.
Thanks to Mickey Nardo for calling my attention to this. The full text of Wilkerson's article is at:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/05/the_truth_about/
Ralph
Begala exposes Cheney
Paul Begala is clearly a partisan Democratic fighter. But he lays out indisputable facts from governmental reports and memo releases that make a devastating case against Dick Cheney's pious claim that the Bush administration kept us safe, while Obama is risking the safety of Americans by dismantling Bush's policies.
Because Cheney is the one speaking about it publicly, Begala focuses on what he knew, when. Here are some of those facts:
1. The 9/11 attacks occurred on Cheney's watch. The Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission has concluded that the attacks could have been prevented.
2. Before they took office, senior Bush administration officials were briefed repeatedly by outgoing Clinton officials about the al Qaeda threat, predicting it was what the incoming administration would wind up spending the most time on.
3. Richard Clarke briefed both Rice and Cheney on the Clinton counterterrorism plan to roll back Al Qaeda. They did nothing about it. Some have suggested that they wanted nothing to do with it "because it was Clinton's plan."
4. On May 8, 2001 - three months after being briefed by Clarke - Cheney was instructed to chair a task force on terrorism. The task force had not yet had a single meeting when the 9-11 attacks occurred -- four months after the assignment.
5. The Bush Department of Justice denied the FBI's request for more money to beef up the domestic counterterrorism efforts.
6. Congressional Democrats sought to shift 800 million dollars in the Pentagon budget from the ill-conceived missile defense system into counterterrorism. The Bush-Cheney administration threatened to veto the entire defense budget if that was in the final bill, and the measure was killed.
7. In July, 2001, an FBI agent in Phoenix reported that Middle Eastern men - possibly al Qaeda - were taking flying lessons. He suggested that al Qaeda operatives might be trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system. His warning was not acted on.
8. On August 6, 2001 Pres. Bush, and presumably Cheney as well, received a classified briefing, the President's Daily Brief. On that day, the briefing headline was: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, Bush told the briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Neither Bush nor Cheney acted on the warning.
9. On 9/11, more than 3,000 Americans lost their lives in the attacks initiated by Bin Laden. The subsequent misguided war in Iraq has led to the loss of over 4,000 more American lives, plus tens of thousands of grave injuries.
Begala concludes:
Ralph
Because Cheney is the one speaking about it publicly, Begala focuses on what he knew, when. Here are some of those facts:
1. The 9/11 attacks occurred on Cheney's watch. The Republican co-chair of the 9/11 Commission has concluded that the attacks could have been prevented.
2. Before they took office, senior Bush administration officials were briefed repeatedly by outgoing Clinton officials about the al Qaeda threat, predicting it was what the incoming administration would wind up spending the most time on.
3. Richard Clarke briefed both Rice and Cheney on the Clinton counterterrorism plan to roll back Al Qaeda. They did nothing about it. Some have suggested that they wanted nothing to do with it "because it was Clinton's plan."
4. On May 8, 2001 - three months after being briefed by Clarke - Cheney was instructed to chair a task force on terrorism. The task force had not yet had a single meeting when the 9-11 attacks occurred -- four months after the assignment.
5. The Bush Department of Justice denied the FBI's request for more money to beef up the domestic counterterrorism efforts.
6. Congressional Democrats sought to shift 800 million dollars in the Pentagon budget from the ill-conceived missile defense system into counterterrorism. The Bush-Cheney administration threatened to veto the entire defense budget if that was in the final bill, and the measure was killed.
7. In July, 2001, an FBI agent in Phoenix reported that Middle Eastern men - possibly al Qaeda - were taking flying lessons. He suggested that al Qaeda operatives might be trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system. His warning was not acted on.
8. On August 6, 2001 Pres. Bush, and presumably Cheney as well, received a classified briefing, the President's Daily Brief. On that day, the briefing headline was: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, Bush told the briefer, "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Neither Bush nor Cheney acted on the warning.
9. On 9/11, more than 3,000 Americans lost their lives in the attacks initiated by Bin Laden. The subsequent misguided war in Iraq has led to the loss of over 4,000 more American lives, plus tens of thousands of grave injuries.
Begala concludes:
Perhaps what's most galling about Mr. Cheney is how, without irony, humility or apology, he holds himself out as someone who has protected America when in fact he shirked his responsibility before 9-11 and misled us into war after.This speaks for itself. Just the facts, ma'am.
Ralph
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Quirkiness pays off
Former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, has given support to Nancy Pelosi's claim that she was never told in briefings (she was chair of the House Intelligence Committee) that waterboarding had actually been used or that it would be used. The CIA has released dates that she was supposedly briefed; she's now saying the CIA lied to her.
Enter Bob Graham. For years, he has been thought a bit quirky for his obsessive habit of writing down everything he does each day in minute detail. So he asked the CIA to provide him with the dates that they claim they briefed him about waterboarding.
Only one of those dates matched his records, and the CIA has acknowledged that his records are accurate.
Further, although he was not allowed to take notes during that one briefing, he says he has no memory that waterboarding was discussed. And he also has what sounds like good reason to believe his memory is correct. He did note that there were two staff members present during the briefing, and the protocol requires that, when matters of a very sensitive nature are discussed in an intelligence briefing, no staff members are allowed to be present.
Now it seems that both Pelosi and Graham are saying that the CIA's claims to have briefed the appropriate Congressional leaders about torture are wrong. The circumstances are that the CIA is trying to shift the focus from their own wrongdoing to their claim that these Congressional leaders knew and did not object. But it looks like they are either mistaken or lying.
I'm voting for the latter. Let's not laugh at Bob Graham's obsessive record-keeping any more.
Ralph
Enter Bob Graham. For years, he has been thought a bit quirky for his obsessive habit of writing down everything he does each day in minute detail. So he asked the CIA to provide him with the dates that they claim they briefed him about waterboarding.
Only one of those dates matched his records, and the CIA has acknowledged that his records are accurate.
Further, although he was not allowed to take notes during that one briefing, he says he has no memory that waterboarding was discussed. And he also has what sounds like good reason to believe his memory is correct. He did note that there were two staff members present during the briefing, and the protocol requires that, when matters of a very sensitive nature are discussed in an intelligence briefing, no staff members are allowed to be present.
Now it seems that both Pelosi and Graham are saying that the CIA's claims to have briefed the appropriate Congressional leaders about torture are wrong. The circumstances are that the CIA is trying to shift the focus from their own wrongdoing to their claim that these Congressional leaders knew and did not object. But it looks like they are either mistaken or lying.
I'm voting for the latter. Let's not laugh at Bob Graham's obsessive record-keeping any more.
Ralph
GOP won't take "no" for an answer
Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz, has been on TV defending her father's criticizing Obama. She said this in reference to (in her words) Obama's moving precipitously to change Bush's policies rather than waiting to see what worked:
In other words, Liz, we had the debate and your team lost. Now what is it about the word "no" that you and your father don't understand?
Ralph
"This [her father's speaking out] isn't about partisan politics, it's about what's right for the country. . . . Every American, whether you're a Republican, Democrat or independent, would agree that before critical decisions are made about national security of the nation, we ought to have a full and fair debate."Isn't that what we had during the ever-lasting presidential campaign and the debates between Obama and McCain -- and then the American people spoke with their votes, loudly and decisively, in favor of Obama's approach?
In other words, Liz, we had the debate and your team lost. Now what is it about the word "no" that you and your father don't understand?
Ralph
Intelligent design
No, not that kind of intelligent design. I mean the intelligence with which the Obama administration approaches problem solving, as well as carrying out its various missions, like protecting the environment, planning for health care, and (hopefully) fixing the financial system.
It is so refreshing to have evidence-based thinking rather than ideology determining decisions.
The latest, and what prompts this posting, is the announcement from Obama's "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, that the Obama administration intends to approach drugs as a problem of public health and not just as a problem for the criminal justice system; i.e., more emphasis on treatment and less on incarceration.
Kerlikowske also plans to stop talking about "the war on drugs," as though the problem is something external to "us" instead of a problem that involves our own people. "We are not at war with people in this country," he said.
This will likely arouse protests that Obama is "soft" on drugs. That would be a mistake. Anyone who wants to argue that what we've been doing has helped, please start with explaining why we have by far the largest percentage of our citizens locked up in jail on drug charges -- and still the drug problem continues unabated.
It's time to try something different. It's time to use our intelligence and not our prejudices and fears.
Ralph
It is so refreshing to have evidence-based thinking rather than ideology determining decisions.
The latest, and what prompts this posting, is the announcement from Obama's "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, that the Obama administration intends to approach drugs as a problem of public health and not just as a problem for the criminal justice system; i.e., more emphasis on treatment and less on incarceration.
Kerlikowske also plans to stop talking about "the war on drugs," as though the problem is something external to "us" instead of a problem that involves our own people. "We are not at war with people in this country," he said.
This will likely arouse protests that Obama is "soft" on drugs. That would be a mistake. Anyone who wants to argue that what we've been doing has helped, please start with explaining why we have by far the largest percentage of our citizens locked up in jail on drug charges -- and still the drug problem continues unabated.
It's time to try something different. It's time to use our intelligence and not our prejudices and fears.
Ralph
Lindsey Graham's ill-logic
Yesterday, in the Intelligence Committee's subcommittee hearing on treatment of detainees, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that the previous administration had made mistakes in its attempt to keep this country safe after 9/11. But he chided those who would sit in the safety of hindsight and judge those who were faced with the responsibility at an extraordinary point in history.
In doing so, he made an interesting statement about how the Bush administration viewed the rule of law:
But then Lindsey added: "but it was not a crime."
There I have to disagree. You might choose not to prosecute, if you feel that their motives were purely to protect us. But we know they were not. Iraq and oil were mixed up in it too, and the plan to take out Saddaam began long before 9/11. There is evidence to back this up.
It was a useful excuse. 9/11 was horrible, but it was the "gift" that fell into their laps. Only they first had to find evidence to "prove" the link between Al Qaeda and Saddaam; then they had to rev up the public's fear of another attack. They were not getting this "evidence," so they tortured to try to produce it, in order to back up the plan they were determined and ready to put into action.
I think that may very well be a crime.
Ralph
In doing so, he made an interesting statement about how the Bush administration viewed the rule of law:
they "saw the law as a nicety we could not afford," he said.Amen.
And Graham added, "that was a mistake."
But then Lindsey added: "but it was not a crime."
There I have to disagree. You might choose not to prosecute, if you feel that their motives were purely to protect us. But we know they were not. Iraq and oil were mixed up in it too, and the plan to take out Saddaam began long before 9/11. There is evidence to back this up.
It was a useful excuse. 9/11 was horrible, but it was the "gift" that fell into their laps. Only they first had to find evidence to "prove" the link between Al Qaeda and Saddaam; then they had to rev up the public's fear of another attack. They were not getting this "evidence," so they tortured to try to produce it, in order to back up the plan they were determined and ready to put into action.
I think that may very well be a crime.
Ralph
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
"Suicide" of a former torturee
Thanks to Mickey Nardo at http://1boringoldman.com/, we have a hugely informative dissection of the capture/torture/disappearance/suicide of one crucial detainee, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.
The story, pieced together here by two bloggers, by Mary on TheLeftCoaster and by Marcy at Emptywheel, is that of a detainee who initially cooperated and gave valuable information when he was interrogated under conventional methods.
But the higher ups weren't satisfied, because he was not admitting a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So they rendered him to Egypt, where he was tortured -- and eventually told them what they wanted to hear. Egypt returned him to us and he later on retracted his statement, saying he had made it up under the duress of torture. Bush nevertheless used it in his Cincinnatti speech, making the case for invading Iraq -- even after al-Libi had retracted it and it had been otherwise debunked.
When this came to light, they blamed al-Libi for "giving bad intelligence." And then it appears they "disappeared him." When they brought the "worst of the worst" detainees to Guantanamo, he was not among them.
Last month, when the Red Cross began questioning the detainees at Guantanamo, they began asking what happened to al-Libi. Now we know he had been sent to Libya, where he was seen briefly by a Human Rights Watch representative.
Here's what the known facts link up:
1. al-Libi was tortured, seemingly to get specific information about an Iraq and Al Qaeda link, which he repeatedly denied until they did torture him. Then he confessed it but later said it was not true.
2. The Bush administration used the evidence anyway to make the case for invading Iraq.
3. al-Libi was "disappeared" in 2006 and held in Libya without access to Red Cross workers. Last month, they discovered where he was and a Human Rights Watch researcher spoke with him briefly.
4. At the same time, torture memos and reports are being released in the U.S., raising the heat about what happened that has been kept secret. It would seem that al-Libi would be a key person any investigator would want to find out more about and talk with. Equally, it would seem that there are some people who definitely did not want him to talk to any investigator.
5. Suddenly, he is found dead in prison, and it is called a suicide.
Suspicious? You bet.
Am I accusing anyone of murder? Not yet. But it certainly strengthens the case that we must have a thorough investigation of the whole torture program carried out by and for the Bush administration.
And don't forget the large number of detainees who have died in prisons, both our own and those we rendered them to in other countries.
Read the fuller description onhttp://1boringoldman.com/
Ralph
The story, pieced together here by two bloggers, by Mary on TheLeftCoaster and by Marcy at Emptywheel, is that of a detainee who initially cooperated and gave valuable information when he was interrogated under conventional methods.
But the higher ups weren't satisfied, because he was not admitting a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So they rendered him to Egypt, where he was tortured -- and eventually told them what they wanted to hear. Egypt returned him to us and he later on retracted his statement, saying he had made it up under the duress of torture. Bush nevertheless used it in his Cincinnatti speech, making the case for invading Iraq -- even after al-Libi had retracted it and it had been otherwise debunked.
When this came to light, they blamed al-Libi for "giving bad intelligence." And then it appears they "disappeared him." When they brought the "worst of the worst" detainees to Guantanamo, he was not among them.
Last month, when the Red Cross began questioning the detainees at Guantanamo, they began asking what happened to al-Libi. Now we know he had been sent to Libya, where he was seen briefly by a Human Rights Watch representative.
Human Right Watch researcher Heba Morayef told Reuters in London that she saw Fakhiri [aka al-Libi] on April 27 during a visit to the Libyan capital’s main Abu Salim jail. She said Fakhiri appeared for just two minutes in a prison courtyard. He look well, but was unwilling to speak to the Rights Watch team, she said. "Where were you when I was being tortured in American prisons?" she quoted him as saying.Last weekend, it was reported that al-Libi was found dead in a Libyan prison of suicide.
Here's what the known facts link up:
1. al-Libi was tortured, seemingly to get specific information about an Iraq and Al Qaeda link, which he repeatedly denied until they did torture him. Then he confessed it but later said it was not true.
2. The Bush administration used the evidence anyway to make the case for invading Iraq.
3. al-Libi was "disappeared" in 2006 and held in Libya without access to Red Cross workers. Last month, they discovered where he was and a Human Rights Watch researcher spoke with him briefly.
4. At the same time, torture memos and reports are being released in the U.S., raising the heat about what happened that has been kept secret. It would seem that al-Libi would be a key person any investigator would want to find out more about and talk with. Equally, it would seem that there are some people who definitely did not want him to talk to any investigator.
5. Suddenly, he is found dead in prison, and it is called a suicide.
Suspicious? You bet.
Am I accusing anyone of murder? Not yet. But it certainly strengthens the case that we must have a thorough investigation of the whole torture program carried out by and for the Bush administration.
And don't forget the large number of detainees who have died in prisons, both our own and those we rendered them to in other countries.
Read the fuller description on
Ralph
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Republicans out to kill health care reform
I'm passing this on from moveon.org
Last week Republicans on Capitol Hill held a strategy summit on how to defeat key parts of the president's health care plan.
At one point, Republican pollster Frank Luntz declared, "You're not going to get what you want, but you can kill what they're trying to do."1
Luntz wrote a confidential memo that laid out the Republican strategy: Pretend to support reform. Mislead Americans about the heart of Obama's plan, the public health insurance option. Scare enough people to doom real reform.
Since most people don't know much about the public health care option, these lies could take root if we don't fight back. Can you send this out to all your friends and neighbors?
5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMA'S PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION
The choice of a public health insurance plan is crucial to real health care reform. But right now, it's being smeared by conservatives and insurance-industry front groups. Here's what you really need to know:
1. Choice, choice, choice. If the public health insurance option passes, Americans will be able to choose between their current insurance and a high-quality, government-run plan similar to Medicare. If you like your current care, you can keep it. If you don't—or don't have any—you can get the public insurance plan.2
2. It will be high-quality coverage with a choice of doctors. Government-run plans have a track record of innovating to improve quality, because they're not just focused on short-term profits. And if you choose the public plan, you'll still get to choose your doctor and hospital.3
3. We'll all save a bunch of money. The public health insurance option won't have to spend money on things like CEO bonuses, shareholder dividends, or excessive advertising, so it'll cost a lot less. Plus, the private plans will have to lower their rates and provide better value to compete, so people who keep their current insurance will save, too.4
4. It will always be there for you and your family. A for-profit insurer can close, move out of the area, or just kick you off their insurance rolls. The public health insurance option will always be available to provide you with the health security you need.5
5. And it's a key part of universal health care. No longer will sick people or folks in rural communities, or low-income Americans be forced to go without coverage. The public health insurance plan will be available and accessible to everyone. And for those struggling to make ends meet, the premiums will be subsidized by the government.
Ralph
Condi explains
More than a week after bloggers picked up Condi Rice's lame answer to Stanford students' questions about her role in the torture decision, her office has released a defense.
Here's what she said, captured on a video clip:
But we are still left with the fact that the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, the Bybee memo, was written in response to a request to find some way of claiming that waterboarding could legally be used and just how far they could go. If the request had simply been: "is waterboarding legal?" it would not have been written the same way.
So you have a compliant Department of Justice (and there are plenty of other examples of this) twisting its legal reasoning to come up with the answer that was being demanded by the administration. And we know how much pressure XVP (the acronym for cheney that I'm adopting from a HuffPost blogger) brought to bear -- on the CIA and others -- to get them to find what he wanted to justify his "dark side" tactics.
This is doubly disturbing because the OLC is supposed to be the office that defines for the administration what is legal, and it requires the utmost in legal scholarship, unbiased good judgment, and impeccable ethics. And now we know they had been corrupted to help out the cheney/bush war plans as well as rove's political machinations.
Perhaps the video clip was a little unfair to Condi, but it doesn't change anything about her role in all of this. And perhaps she didn't make such a bald statement as Nixon's "if the president does it, it means it's not illegal," but in effect that is almost what happened, isn't it?
Ralph
Here's what she said, captured on a video clip:
"By definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture."Today her Chief of Staff at the Hoover Institution wrote a letter to the New York Times explaining that this quote was taken out of context. Prior to this quote, she had told the same student the following:
"Anything that was legal and was going to make this country safer, the president wanted to do -- nothing that was illegal, and nothing that was going to make the country less safe."He then explains that her statement makes it clear that
"the tactic used was legal not because the president authorized it; rather, the president sought and received legal opinion indicating that it was legal before he authorized it."OK. Fair enough, assuming that that is what she said and that the clip was out of context.
But we are still left with the fact that the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel, the Bybee memo, was written in response to a request to find some way of claiming that waterboarding could legally be used and just how far they could go. If the request had simply been: "is waterboarding legal?" it would not have been written the same way.
So you have a compliant Department of Justice (and there are plenty of other examples of this) twisting its legal reasoning to come up with the answer that was being demanded by the administration. And we know how much pressure XVP (the acronym for cheney that I'm adopting from a HuffPost blogger) brought to bear -- on the CIA and others -- to get them to find what he wanted to justify his "dark side" tactics.
This is doubly disturbing because the OLC is supposed to be the office that defines for the administration what is legal, and it requires the utmost in legal scholarship, unbiased good judgment, and impeccable ethics. And now we know they had been corrupted to help out the cheney/bush war plans as well as rove's political machinations.
Perhaps the video clip was a little unfair to Condi, but it doesn't change anything about her role in all of this. And perhaps she didn't make such a bald statement as Nixon's "if the president does it, it means it's not illegal," but in effect that is almost what happened, isn't it?
Ralph
Monday, May 11, 2009
Report contradicts Cheney
The Washington Post says today that the Obama administration is about to release the declassified 2004 report from the CIA Inspector General and that it "will almost certainly disprove claims that waterboarding was only used in controlled circumstances with effective results."
But, even before that report -- dubbed "the Holy Grail" by insiders, because of its supposedly being the long-sought answer to it all -- there is evidence in a footnote to the recently released 2005 Office of Legal Council memos, as discovered by one of the investigative bloggers.
The memo states that medical personnel protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'"
Apparently, Dick Cheney has been trying to shape public opinion before these reports are released, because then it will be too late to write history to his liking. It's already appearing that it's not that Obama's release of the reports is making the country less safe, but that it is exposing the results of mendacity in the bush administration, probably with cheney being the mastermind and enforcer.
Remember, it was he who said right after 9/11 that we would "have to go over to the dark side" to keep the country safe.
Ralph
But, even before that report -- dubbed "the Holy Grail" by insiders, because of its supposedly being the long-sought answer to it all -- there is evidence in a footnote to the recently released 2005 Office of Legal Council memos, as discovered by one of the investigative bloggers.
The memo states that medical personnel protested the use of the waterboard in that form, stressing that "there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used by the psychologist/interrogators was either efficacious or medically safe.'"
Apparently, Dick Cheney has been trying to shape public opinion before these reports are released, because then it will be too late to write history to his liking. It's already appearing that it's not that Obama's release of the reports is making the country less safe, but that it is exposing the results of mendacity in the bush administration, probably with cheney being the mastermind and enforcer.
Remember, it was he who said right after 9/11 that we would "have to go over to the dark side" to keep the country safe.
Ralph
Specter the Weasel
Last week I pointed out that Arlen Specter's flip may turn out to be a flop, since his voting patterns don't seem to have changed. Sure, he's better than most Republicans, but he still voted against Obama's budget, and he opposes the important labor bill and some of the basic elements of the future health care reform.
Now it looks like he could also prove an embarrassment connected with a fund-raising effort.
As reported on TPM, in a fundraising website specterforthecure.com, Specter touts a bold new plan to fund cancer research (he is a survivor of Hodgkin's disease). The implication in the web site is that you would be contributing to cancer research.
The main heading of the website is: "Specter for the Cure: A Giant Leap in Turning Research into Cures." It is described as "a bold new initiative to reform our government's medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures."
But it is actually a sly -- maybe even deceptive -- political fundraiser for Specter's re-election campaign. The reasoning goes like this: we need Specter in the Senate to ensure the passage of this legislation, so contribute to his re-election. And it does, in fact, say at the end "Please contribute to Senator Specter’s re-election Committee – Citizens for Arlen Specter."
But it seems that many people might contribute thinking they are supporting cancer research.
And they will be, but only indirectly. Not a dime of the money will go directly to cancer research or to fund treatments. If he loses the election, or if the legislation does not pass, research will not have benefited even indirectly.
It should be very clear that this is a political contribution and therefore is not tax-deductible. That is the clear distinction. Nowhere on the web site does it say that contributions are not tax-deductible, as they would be for medical research.
My previous impression of Specter as an unreliable weasel remains unchanged.
Ralph
Now it looks like he could also prove an embarrassment connected with a fund-raising effort.
As reported on TPM, in a fundraising website specterforthecure.com, Specter touts a bold new plan to fund cancer research (he is a survivor of Hodgkin's disease). The implication in the web site is that you would be contributing to cancer research.
The main heading of the website is: "Specter for the Cure: A Giant Leap in Turning Research into Cures." It is described as "a bold new initiative to reform our government's medical research efforts, cut red tape and unstrangle the hope for accelerated cures."
But it is actually a sly -- maybe even deceptive -- political fundraiser for Specter's re-election campaign. The reasoning goes like this: we need Specter in the Senate to ensure the passage of this legislation, so contribute to his re-election. And it does, in fact, say at the end "Please contribute to Senator Specter’s re-election Committee – Citizens for Arlen Specter."
But it seems that many people might contribute thinking they are supporting cancer research.
And they will be, but only indirectly. Not a dime of the money will go directly to cancer research or to fund treatments. If he loses the election, or if the legislation does not pass, research will not have benefited even indirectly.
It should be very clear that this is a political contribution and therefore is not tax-deductible. That is the clear distinction. Nowhere on the web site does it say that contributions are not tax-deductible, as they would be for medical research.
My previous impression of Specter as an unreliable weasel remains unchanged.
Ralph
Talkative Cheney
The once-reclusive, secretive VP has suddenly become garrulous, pushing his story all over TV.
Yesterday, on "Face the Nation," he repeated his "no regrets" mantra. "I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives," he said.
He explained that he is speaking out because the issues are so important, and he sees President Obama as endangering the nation by removing "a lot of those policies we put in place to keep the nation safe for eight years."
He insisted that, prior to using the enhanced techniques, they had tried less controversial methods of gaining information from detainees, with limited effect. This is disputed by a number of people involved, who are now coming forth with their versions and saying that in many cases the useful information was obtained prior to the torture techniques.
And then Cheney went a step further than he has gone before and spoke of President Bush's involvement. When asked if President Bush himself had signed off on the interrogation program, his response was carefully parsed but gives the impression that Bush was brought into it later on, only as an authorizing formality.
Yesterday, on "Face the Nation," he repeated his "no regrets" mantra. "I think it was absolutely the right thing to do. I am convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives," he said.
He explained that he is speaking out because the issues are so important, and he sees President Obama as endangering the nation by removing "a lot of those policies we put in place to keep the nation safe for eight years."
He insisted that, prior to using the enhanced techniques, they had tried less controversial methods of gaining information from detainees, with limited effect. This is disputed by a number of people involved, who are now coming forth with their versions and saying that in many cases the useful information was obtained prior to the torture techniques.
And then Cheney went a step further than he has gone before and spoke of President Bush's involvement. When asked if President Bush himself had signed off on the interrogation program, his response was carefully parsed but gives the impression that Bush was brought into it later on, only as an authorizing formality.
"I certainly have every reason to believe that he knew a great deal about the program," Cheney said. "He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it."
Keep talking Mr. Former VP. Just keep making more and more claims that can be refuted by others -- thereby forcing the release of more data and testimony.
And then we'll see who was right.
Ralph
Sunday, May 10, 2009
A Question for Dick Cheney
Mr. Cheney,
You have insisted that extreme interrogation (aka torture) was justified because it yielded important intelligence information that helped keep America safe from terrorist attacks following 9/11.
In other words, torture is justified because it is effective.
But terrorism is also effective. Is it then justified?
A crime is not illegal if it was effective? Or if you deemed it "necessary?" I do not believe that would stand up in court.
Could you please clarify this for me?
Ralph
You have insisted that extreme interrogation (aka torture) was justified because it yielded important intelligence information that helped keep America safe from terrorist attacks following 9/11.
In other words, torture is justified because it is effective.
But terrorism is also effective. Is it then justified?
A crime is not illegal if it was effective? Or if you deemed it "necessary?" I do not believe that would stand up in court.
Could you please clarify this for me?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
