TW: A couple of gratuitous thoughts for Friday morning:
1) W. Bush/Cheney et al. publically espoused the 1% doctrine relative to terrorism, as in if there was a 1% chance of terrorists commiting an act the U.S. had to act to pre-empt their actions (Cheney said as much literally on Meet the Press). We spent hundreds of billions on such pre-emptions. Why are the neo-cons et al. willing to do so with terrorism but shriek and moan in re. spending billions relative to pre-empting climate change where the majority of scientists are in agreement? Thoughts?
2) AfPak. This is going to be THE decision of the Obama presidency. Health care is sucking the vast majority of political oxygen these days with a little left over for skirmishes on race, financial reform etc. But once health care falls off the front page by the holidays then AfPak will become THE issue of the day. Iraq was easy in comparison. By 2005 half the country thought it was a disastrous foray, somewhat less than half thought we needed to leave "with honor" (i.e. "surge") in order to cover up the mess. There is no such relatively binary choice in AfPak. Get ready for a rumble.
That is all.
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Marine Generals To Cheney: "Fear Is NO Excuse"
TW: To Cheney I could add most members of the Fox Nationalistic Jingoistic Channel, Limbaugh, Malkin etc. etc.
Their credentials:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
From Miami Herald via Tom Ricks:
"In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.
But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.
We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.
...Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''
Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.
Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.
What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.
The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.
To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.
On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.
On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.
Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer."
Their credentials:
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
From Miami Herald via Tom Ricks:
"In the fear that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Americans were told that defeating Al Qaeda would require us to ``take off the gloves.'' As a former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and a retired commander-in-chief of U.S. Central Command, we knew that was a recipe for disaster.
But we never imagined that we would feel duty-bound to publicly denounce a vice president of the United States, a man who has served our country for many years. In light of the irresponsible statements recently made by former Vice President Dick Cheney, however, we feel we must repudiate his dangerous ideas -- and his scare tactics.
We have seen how ill-conceived policies that ignored military law on the treatment of enemy prisoners hindered our ability to defeat al Qaeda. We have seen American troops die at the hands of foreign fighters recruited with stories about tortured Muslim detainees at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. And yet Cheney and others who orchestrated America's disastrous trip to ``the dark side'' continue to assert -- against all evidence -- that torture ``worked'' and that our country is better off for having gone there.
...Cheney applauded the ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' -- what we used to call ``war crimes'' because they violated the Geneva Conventions, which the United States instigated and has followed for 60 years. Cheney insisted the abusive techniques were ``absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives and preventing further attacks against the United States.'' He claimed they were ``directly responsible for the fact that for eight years, we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States. It was good policy . . . It worked very, very well.''
Repeating these assertions doesn't make them true. We now see that the best intelligence, which led to the capture of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was produced by professional interrogations using non-coercive techniques. When the abuse began, prisoners told interrogators whatever they thought would make it stop.
Torture is as likely to produce lies as the truth. And it did.
What leaders say matters. So when it comes to light, as it did recently, that U.S. interrogators staged mock executions and held a whirling electric drill close to the body of a naked, hooded detainee, and the former vice president winks and nods, it matters.
The Bush administration had already degraded the rules of war by authorizing techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions and shocked the conscience of the world. Now Cheney has publicly condoned the abuse that went beyond even those weakened standards, leading us down a slippery slope of lawlessness. Rules about the humane treatment of prisoners exist precisely to deter those in the field from taking matters into their own hands. They protect our nation's honor.
To argue that honorable conduct is only required against an honorable enemy degrades the Americans who must carry out the orders. As military professionals, we know that complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality. Moral equivocation about abuse at the top of the chain of command travels through the ranks at warp speed.
On Aug. 24, the United States took an important step toward moral clarity and the rule of law when a special task force recommended that in the future, the Army interrogation manual should be the single standard for all agencies of the U.S. government.
The unanimous decision represents an unusual consensus among the defense, intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security agencies. Members of the task force had access to every scrap of intelligence, yet they drew the opposite conclusion from Cheney's. They concluded that far from making us safer, cruelty betrays American values and harms U.S. national security.
On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most.
Our current commander-in-chief understands this. The task force recommendations take us a step closer to restoring the rule of law and the standards of human dignity that made us who we are as a nation. Repudiating torture and other cruelty helps keep us from being sent on fools' errands by bad intelligence. And in the end, that makes us all safer."
Monday, September 14, 2009
Constitutional Cherry Picking
TW: Given the shrill calls in D.C. from protesters over the weekend to "respect the constitution" it is relevant to recall an issue where our constitution has been stretched beyond the breaking point. There is no doubt at this point many Americans are comfortable with American torture. Our former VPOTUS clearly supports doing "whatever it takes" in the name of American security regardless of any constitutional or legal impediments (and regardless of its actual efficacy). Either we act differently or we acknowledge our morals have been overtaken by fear.We are meant to have elections to adjudicate these fundamental disputes.
The Economist from a couple of weeks ago on Cheney's interview with the Fox Nationalist Jingoistic American Channel:
"...there was one moment in the interview that was uniquely clarifying. It came when Mr Cheney defended the CIA interrogators who are accused of going beyond the tactics authorised by the Justice Department. First he claimed they had acted legally, then he claimed it didn't matter.
'Wallace: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorisation, you're OK with it?
Cheney: I am.'
Of course he is. In many ways these interrogators are Mr Cheney writ small. They are the child to Mr Cheney's dad in those old anti-drug commercials—"I learned it by watching you!" (Except Mr Cheney is a proud papa.) Like the former vice-president before them, they treated the law as a vague, non-binding inconvenience.
Mr Cheney will argue that the previous administration's actions were legal, but one senses he hates having to make this argument. For him, his assertion that the interrogation programme "saved thousands of lives" is the end of the debate. His own indifference in this case to his administration's dubious legal memoranda shows the true value he placed on those documents. As Andrew Sullivan points out, Mr Cheney is "basically saying that the law had no salience or relevance in his program of torturing prisoners." First the law was made to conform to the administration's policies, then, when even the new law became too burdensome, it was considered irrelevant. It's an odd way to run a democracy based on the rule of law."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/little_cheneys.cfm
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Conflict, Fearmongering, Simple-mindedness
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| American Idealogues | ||||
| ||||
TW: Stewart hones in- the media's insatiable desire for conflict which makes their lives so easy, the fear mongrel in chief in action and the simple-mindedness of the Cheney approach and its associated hypocrisy.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Extremism In Defense Of Security Is a Vice
TW: Some highlights from National Review and Weekly Standard on their reactions to today's speeches. These are the mainline conservative magazines, I could not force myself to go to the real hard core sites like Red State.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
From William Kristol at Weekly Standard:
"Cheney vs. Obama: A Mismatch-I've read both speeches.
Obama's is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor--platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way...Cheney's is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He's sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices." [TW: Kristol patronizes Obama with the young senator approach, that crap got old about last May. More importantly, Kristol essentially asserts nuance equals bad, absolutism equals good. To me simple-mindedness has its uses, but the world is more complex.]
From Dana Perino (fmr. White House press secretary)
"I wish the Democrats would put half as much energy into fighting terrorists as they do in fighting Dick Cheney...Once today’s fake duel is over, let’s hope we get back to some sanity in this discussion. Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work." [TW: in other words, Gingrich/Cheney/Boehner etc. can call our POTUS a naive surrender monkey basically but the Dems should focus on fighting the terrorists- F-you Dana]
KJ Lopez at National Review:
"It's worth noting that while we release memos and shine a spotlight on the worst that we've done, we had a prolonged debate about whether or not it was something akin to torture to show Daniel Pearl's beheading and other actual instances of brutality on television.
The American Enterprise Institute, by the way, was helpful in not hiding the actual evil of our enemy when they posted video on their website of Saddam Hussein-era torture at Abu Ghraib. That we are outraged at what our people did at Abu Ghraib is right. But that's never been a reason to lose sight of the big picture. [TW: In other words, they tortured worse than us so there, I would we could do better than this]
From Peter Kirsanow at National Review:
"A serious, important speech.
Politicians and the media seem unduly impressed by favorability polls, often drawing unwarranted conclusions from them. Since Cheney has relatively high unfavorables, it's assumed that the public dismisses his statements.
It would be interesting to see the results of a more finely calibrated poll, one that compares how well-respected, competent, and effective the subject is perceived to be relative to similarly situated individuals. As a friend succinctly puts it, "When that big asteroid finally heads toward Earth, who's the person you'd most want to be in charge?" I suspect Cheney would score at or near the top.
Conservatives can only speculate about the state of affairs had we seen more of this type of detailed, sober defense during President Bush's tenure." [TW: he speaks for some portion of our country, who think Cheney is right. Me the last guy I wanted in the WH post 9/11 or if an asteroid were this way was/is Cheney because he decisively makes bad decisions. Decisiveness and good decisions are not one and the same.]
TW: I would encourage everyone to watch or read the speeches. This stuff is important, don't rely on others to guide your opinions including yours truly especially. Our lives have changed immensely since 9/11. Our successors lives will be changed. The absolutism and never-ending waving of the bloody shirt of 9/11 puts fundamental American values at risk. This is especially crucial in a globalized world where American values remain one of our most cherished assets amidst economic malaise and malfeasance. Dick Cheney and his adherents have essentially turned their conservative forefather's famous axiom on it's head:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" has become "Extremism in the defense of security is no vice".
Certainly one can debate the various forms of liberty but generally it can be a universal concept whereby all gain. Security, however, quickly becomes a zero-sum, my country at the expense of yours. We end up going into a crouch, constructing shells and lashing out of our own self-imposed crouch at real and perceived threats. Ultimately of course leaving less not more secure.
Folks are getting lost in he said, she said about Pelosi and where the detainees are going to reside post Gitmo. The issues on the table are far larger. Ignore them at your peril.
Making Our Choice
From POTUS Obama both quotes via Time:
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "
And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.
Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?
"We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. "
And:
"Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders – highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal “supermax” prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. As Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational.”
TW: Our POTUS was, as usual, nuanced and constructive in addressing how we as a nation should approach the challenge of terrorism. He rejects the false choice between the blind pursuit of security or surrender. He proposes common sense relative to the interment of prisoners in the U.S. In contrast, the former VPOTUS continued to deny the obvious, that he and his administration initiated state sponsored torture, and framed our efforts against terror in the all or nothing language of you are either with us or against us that is almost always doomed to failure.
Having these two speak on the same morning provides an excellent opportunity for the American people to analyze how they want their country to act and proceed in an inherently risky world. Terrorism is real, open-ended and likely never to be completely eradicated. Shall we alter our basic freedoms and economic structures in a futile effort to attain the unattainable, 100% security. Or shall we adapt, accept nuance and optimize the reality in which we live?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
You Go Jesse!!!
TW: No comment other than. Here! Here!
The quote "give me a waterboard, an hour and Dick Cheney and I will have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders" will become famous.
Monday, May 11, 2009
No Commentary Needed Really
TW: Below are quotes from just the past couple of days from the leaders of the Republican Party such as it is. Steele's quote should be expanded to "we Republicans" as with these attitudes of sneering, patronizing, disdainful glibness are not the words of folks who should be running anyone's party much less a great nation.
From Taegen Goddard:
"I'm the gift that keeps on giving."
-- RNC Chairman Michael Steele, quoted by David Corn, "almost as if he were proud of that."
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) -- head of the House Republican campaign effort -- cited rising unemployment in asserting that the Obama administration intended to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices" as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to consolidate power, reports the New York Times.Sessions said Mr. Obama's agenda was "intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it."
Newt Gingrich, in an interview on Fox News, compares the charm of Barack Obama with that of Bill Clinton:"Well, he's not charming in the same sense that Clinton is. I mean, President Obama is a very smart, very gifted person, a very good strategic thinker. He's a very pleasant person. The fact is Clinton was charming, but we got welfare reform. And he was charming, but we got a tax cut. And he was charming, but we balanced the budget. So I'm perfectly happy to be charmed with somebody who says 'yes.' "
[TW: to be clear ZERO Republicans voted for Clinton's 1993 budget that set the table for the balanced budgets and in fact the Republicans stuck ayes votes for that budget up the backside of numerous Dem House candidates to the Republicans gain in the 1994 election]
"Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican."-- Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview on Face the Nation, on whether Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh were a better spokesman for the Republican party.
"People that are social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a lot of the economic conservatives are not social conservatives. Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs."-- Mike Huckabee, in an interview with the Visalia Times-Delta."
From Taegen Goddard:
"I'm the gift that keeps on giving."
-- RNC Chairman Michael Steele, quoted by David Corn, "almost as if he were proud of that."
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) -- head of the House Republican campaign effort -- cited rising unemployment in asserting that the Obama administration intended to "diminish employment and diminish stock prices" as part of a "divide and conquer" strategy to consolidate power, reports the New York Times.Sessions said Mr. Obama's agenda was "intended to inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system, if not to kill it."
Newt Gingrich, in an interview on Fox News, compares the charm of Barack Obama with that of Bill Clinton:"Well, he's not charming in the same sense that Clinton is. I mean, President Obama is a very smart, very gifted person, a very good strategic thinker. He's a very pleasant person. The fact is Clinton was charming, but we got welfare reform. And he was charming, but we got a tax cut. And he was charming, but we balanced the budget. So I'm perfectly happy to be charmed with somebody who says 'yes.' "
[TW: to be clear ZERO Republicans voted for Clinton's 1993 budget that set the table for the balanced budgets and in fact the Republicans stuck ayes votes for that budget up the backside of numerous Dem House candidates to the Republicans gain in the 1994 election]
"Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican."-- Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview on Face the Nation, on whether Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh were a better spokesman for the Republican party.
"People that are social conservatives are also economic conservatives. But a lot of the economic conservatives are not social conservatives. Throw the social conservatives the pro-life, pro-family people overboard and the Republican party will be as irrelevant as the Whigs."-- Mike Huckabee, in an interview with the Visalia Times-Delta."
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Cheney 2008!
TW: A little tardy but Douthat (late of the Atlantic, now at NYT as resident conservative voice), poses an interesting what if, as in what if Cheney had been the 2008 Republican nominee. Not that he would have won (Douthat frames the idea as an intellectual exercise not a viable hypothetical), but the implications are worth pondering.
Douthat's point is that McCain is a non-standard Republican unrepresentative of the party's core constituents. Cheney on the other hand is very much reflective of the Republican base. An election in 2008 between a true representative of the core would have put that core up to the test. As it is the core (and their talk radio trumpets) can lie back like typical ideologues and claim they just need a purer Republican to regain power. Douthat suspects the ideologues are very wrong therefore the Republican day of reckoning was merely delayed when McCain became the nominee.
Specifically Douthat posits that issues such as torture and fiscal conservatism amidst a world-wide demand contraction need airing in the forum of an actual election rather than the incestuous netherworlds of talk radio and conservative symposiums.
I agree with Douthat, as I have written several times, the Republicans are molting, any measures to accelerate their emergence from a rather messy pupa will help the Republicans return to a viable, constructive opponent.
From Douthat at NYT:
"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.
...At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.
If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country. The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.
He wasn’t alone. A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.
But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Douthat's point is that McCain is a non-standard Republican unrepresentative of the party's core constituents. Cheney on the other hand is very much reflective of the Republican base. An election in 2008 between a true representative of the core would have put that core up to the test. As it is the core (and their talk radio trumpets) can lie back like typical ideologues and claim they just need a purer Republican to regain power. Douthat suspects the ideologues are very wrong therefore the Republican day of reckoning was merely delayed when McCain became the nominee.
Specifically Douthat posits that issues such as torture and fiscal conservatism amidst a world-wide demand contraction need airing in the forum of an actual election rather than the incestuous netherworlds of talk radio and conservative symposiums.
I agree with Douthat, as I have written several times, the Republicans are molting, any measures to accelerate their emergence from a rather messy pupa will help the Republicans return to a viable, constructive opponent.
From Douthat at NYT:
"Watching Dick Cheney defend the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, it’s been hard to escape the impression that both the Republican Party and the country would be better off today if Cheney, rather than John McCain, had been a candidate for president in 2008.
...At the very least, a Cheney-Obama contest would have clarified conservatism’s present political predicament. In the wake of two straight drubbings at the polls, much of the American right has comforted itself with the idea that conservatives lost the country primarily because the Bush-era Republican Party spent too much money on social programs. And John McCain’s defeat has been taken as the vindication of this premise.
We tried running the maverick reformer, the argument goes, and look what it got us. What Americans want is real conservatism, not some crypto-liberal imitation.
“Real conservatism,” in this narrative, means a particular strain of right-wingery: a conservatism of supply-side economics and stress positions, uninterested in social policy and dismissive of libertarian qualms about the national-security state. And Dick Cheney happens to be its diamond-hard distillation. The former vice-president kept his distance from the Bush administration’s attempts at domestic reform, and he had little time for the idealistic, religiously infused side of his boss’s policy agenda. He was for tax cuts at home and pre-emptive warfare overseas; anything else he seemed to disdain as sentimentalism.
This is precisely the sort of conservatism that’s ascendant in today’s much-reduced Republican Party, from the talk radio dials to the party’s grassroots. And a Cheney-for-President campaign would have been an instructive test of its political viability.
As a candidate, Cheney would have doubtless been as disciplined and ideologically consistent as McCain was feckless. In debates with Barack Obama, he would have been as cuttingly effective as he was in his encounters with Joe Lieberman and John Edwards in 2000 and 2004 respectively. And when he went down to a landslide loss, the conservative movement might – might! – have been jolted into the kind of rethinking that’s necessary if it hopes to regain power.
If a Cheney defeat could have been good for the Republican Party; a Cheney campaign could have been good for the country. The former vice-president’s post-election attacks on Obama are bad form, of course, under the peculiar rules of Washington politesse. But they’re part of an argument about the means and ends of our interrogation policy that should have happened during the general election and didn’t – because McCain wasn’t a supporter of the Bush-era approach, and Obama didn’t see a percentage in harping on the topic.
He wasn’t alone. A large swath of the political class wants to avoid the torture debate. The Obama administration backed into it last week, and obviously wants to back right out again.
But the argument isn’t going away. It will be with us as long as the threat of terrorism endures. And where the Bush administration’s interrogation programs are concerned, we’ve heard too much to just “look forward,” as the president would have us do. We need to hear more: What was done and who approved it, and what intelligence we really gleaned from it. Not so that we can prosecute – unless the Democratic Party has taken leave of its senses – but so that we can learn, and pass judgment, and struggle toward consensus.
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But better if this debate had happened during the campaign season. And better, perhaps, if Cheney himself had been there to have it out."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/opinion/28douthat.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Monday, April 27, 2009
What Would We Do?
TW: Political Daily is another new entrant into the web site field. It is notable being started by refugees from MSM. Regardless, this piece intrigued not so much for its core purpose- to question the need for prosecution of torture facilitators- but for the issue of whether its background premise is valid. The piece assumes a hypothetical right-wing conservative takeover of the White House in 2012 due to a spectacular terrorist attack prior to the election.
What would happen in the event of another serious terrorist attack on the U.S.? Obviously the specific circumstances and timing would be relevant (i.e. a clear intelligence failure etc.). But would the U.S. veer so far right in the event of an attack. This has been my fear since 9/11. We have already veered far right once post 9/11, would it get even worse post a 2nd attack? I fear so.
Folks will trade much liberty for security. In many ways counter-terrorism is like crime prevention. How do you manage the risks without smothering liberties. The right especially that embodied by the Cheney wing of the Republican party is unwilling to bear almost any risk and presumably willing to blame anyone who is willing to bear the risks. The key would not be that 30% of the electorate aligned with Cheney et al. but the other 70%. How would they react?
My hope is they would maturely weigh the costs of going all in towards risk reduction. The loss of lives to spectacular terrorists are horrific. But torture, unilateral war-making, massive defense budgets and general paranoia carry economic and human costs as well. In fact those costs exceed those of any terrorist act to date including 9/11. Would our society weigh these accordingly? I doubt it.
ps Will address the core premise of the article- prosecuting a hypothetical post-terrorism official versus a real torture facilitator on a later post.
From Political Daily:
"The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.
"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."
Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.
Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/23/president-palins-quandary-to-prosecute-or-not/
What would happen in the event of another serious terrorist attack on the U.S.? Obviously the specific circumstances and timing would be relevant (i.e. a clear intelligence failure etc.). But would the U.S. veer so far right in the event of an attack. This has been my fear since 9/11. We have already veered far right once post 9/11, would it get even worse post a 2nd attack? I fear so.
Folks will trade much liberty for security. In many ways counter-terrorism is like crime prevention. How do you manage the risks without smothering liberties. The right especially that embodied by the Cheney wing of the Republican party is unwilling to bear almost any risk and presumably willing to blame anyone who is willing to bear the risks. The key would not be that 30% of the electorate aligned with Cheney et al. but the other 70%. How would they react?
My hope is they would maturely weigh the costs of going all in towards risk reduction. The loss of lives to spectacular terrorists are horrific. But torture, unilateral war-making, massive defense budgets and general paranoia carry economic and human costs as well. In fact those costs exceed those of any terrorist act to date including 9/11. Would our society weigh these accordingly? I doubt it.
ps Will address the core premise of the article- prosecuting a hypothetical post-terrorism official versus a real torture facilitator on a later post.
From Political Daily:
"The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.
"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."
Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.
Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/23/president-palins-quandary-to-prosecute-or-not/
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Torture Neither Effective Nor Moral
TW: As this piece states there are two bases from which to oppose torture- moral and efficacy. I believe either suffices and would argue for both. New evidence supports the lack of efficacy from torture. Darth Cheney continues to imply efficacious torture yet hides behind alleged secrecy relative to his assertions. No one at the CIA can apparently provide any such data.
Obviously if one always claims "secrecy" when pressed for data an argument is not possible. This is always a convenient excuse for criminals within government. With a new administration one would hope if any such evidence exists it could be publicized (in an appropriate classified setting).
Economist:
"I HAVE argued in the past on this blog for an open debate about the efficacy of torture (apart from the ever-present moral debate), which would use information gained from America's experience in the war on terrorism. Over the weekend the torture-is-ineffective side of the argument got a big boost. The Washington Post reported that America's torture of Abu Zubaydah produced little more than false leads, wasting the time and money of the nation's security agencies. (Any useful intelligence Mr Zubaydah provided came pre-torture, say officials.)
The article is a fascinating read, detailing how Mr Zubaydah came to be falsely described as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations". But, more than anything, the article frustrates those who want to have a serious debate about torture. A debate that the last administration refuses to participate in, yet claims to have won. The Post reports
Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.
"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."
Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.
So let me get this straight: The agency that is charged with stopping terrorist attacks claims to have stopped a "great many", while the man who authorised that agency to use torture claims that those techniques worked, yet neither can provide any evidence to support their claims, even in a classified setting. And this is supposed to make for a convincing argument?
The case for a torture commission is often attributed to those with vindictive motives. But is also in the interest of anyone, like Mr Cheney, who genuinely believes that America's detainee policies saved lives. Shedding light on those policies may undermine American security, as Mr Cheney would argue, but no more than ending those policies completely, which, as the current debate stands, is the likely outcome. Those genuinely interested in America's security should welcome an open debate on the matter. And yet they don't. Why is that?"
Obviously if one always claims "secrecy" when pressed for data an argument is not possible. This is always a convenient excuse for criminals within government. With a new administration one would hope if any such evidence exists it could be publicized (in an appropriate classified setting).
Economist:
"I HAVE argued in the past on this blog for an open debate about the efficacy of torture (apart from the ever-present moral debate), which would use information gained from America's experience in the war on terrorism. Over the weekend the torture-is-ineffective side of the argument got a big boost. The Washington Post reported that America's torture of Abu Zubaydah produced little more than false leads, wasting the time and money of the nation's security agencies. (Any useful intelligence Mr Zubaydah provided came pre-torture, say officials.)
The article is a fascinating read, detailing how Mr Zubaydah came to be falsely described as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations". But, more than anything, the article frustrates those who want to have a serious debate about torture. A debate that the last administration refuses to participate in, yet claims to have won. The Post reports
Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.
"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."
Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said.
So let me get this straight: The agency that is charged with stopping terrorist attacks claims to have stopped a "great many", while the man who authorised that agency to use torture claims that those techniques worked, yet neither can provide any evidence to support their claims, even in a classified setting. And this is supposed to make for a convincing argument?
The case for a torture commission is often attributed to those with vindictive motives. But is also in the interest of anyone, like Mr Cheney, who genuinely believes that America's detainee policies saved lives. Shedding light on those policies may undermine American security, as Mr Cheney would argue, but no more than ending those policies completely, which, as the current debate stands, is the likely outcome. Those genuinely interested in America's security should welcome an open debate on the matter. And yet they don't. Why is that?"
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Dick Cheney: Barbarian
TW: Cheney's re-emergence into the scene with his interview over the weekend was akin to someone scratching a scab off of a sore for me. I have tended to push him out of my mind but then the scab peels off and the anger returns. What probably drives me most crazy about him was his overt and never-ending Orwellian tendency to call black as white, blue as red, or green as blue all the while claiming, he was merely talking about white, red and blue.
This doublespeak permeated the Bush administration but Cheney was its exemplar. Those who cannot describe the truth certainly cannot speak the truth.
Torture is the most egregious example. The U.S. post 9/11 under Bush Cheney tortured people, we did not interrogate them in an enhanced way, we freaking tortured them. Some barbarians(Sean Hannity for one) have no problem with saying it explicitly, others for various reasons obfuscate, deny and lie.
From Economist:
"... The former vice president argued yesterday that the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts were "a great success story". "It was done legally", he added. "It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles." Today Mark Danner, via a new report in the New York Review of Books, challenges each one of Mr Cheney's assertions.
Legal? Mr Danner cites a 2007 report from the International Committee of the Red Cross which concluded that the administration's treatment of detainees at the CIA's secret prisons "constituted torture" and that some practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". "It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading...The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."
In accordance with constitutional practices and principles? On this count, let's hear from the former president himself, George W Bush: "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorised it—and I will not authorise it." Here are some of the chapter headings from the ICRC report—"suffocation by water", "prolonged stress standing", "beatings by use of a collar", "confinement in a box".
A great success story? This is probably the most debatable point. We've dealt before on this blog with the possible efficacy of torture (referencing some of the same cases that Mr Danner outlines). But Khaled Sheikh Mohammed's testimony before the ICRC points to one of the main arguments against using this tactic.
The former administration will make the very legitimate argument that the report is flawed because it relies on the accounts of accused terrorists. Mr Danner counters that it is reliable—"Indeed, since the detainees were kept strictly apart and isolated, both at the black sites and at Guantánamo, the striking similarity in their stories would seem to make fabrication extremely unlikely."
This doublespeak permeated the Bush administration but Cheney was its exemplar. Those who cannot describe the truth certainly cannot speak the truth.
Torture is the most egregious example. The U.S. post 9/11 under Bush Cheney tortured people, we did not interrogate them in an enhanced way, we freaking tortured them. Some barbarians(Sean Hannity for one) have no problem with saying it explicitly, others for various reasons obfuscate, deny and lie.
From Economist:
"... The former vice president argued yesterday that the Bush administration's anti-terror efforts were "a great success story". "It was done legally", he added. "It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles." Today Mark Danner, via a new report in the New York Review of Books, challenges each one of Mr Cheney's assertions.
Legal? Mr Danner cites a 2007 report from the International Committee of the Red Cross which concluded that the administration's treatment of detainees at the CIA's secret prisons "constituted torture" and that some practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". "It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading...The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."
In accordance with constitutional practices and principles? On this count, let's hear from the former president himself, George W Bush: "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorised it—and I will not authorise it." Here are some of the chapter headings from the ICRC report—"suffocation by water", "prolonged stress standing", "beatings by use of a collar", "confinement in a box".
A great success story? This is probably the most debatable point. We've dealt before on this blog with the possible efficacy of torture (referencing some of the same cases that Mr Danner outlines). But Khaled Sheikh Mohammed's testimony before the ICRC points to one of the main arguments against using this tactic.
I gave a lot of false information in order to satisfy what I believed the interrogators wished to hear in order to make the ill-treatment stop.... I'm sure that the false information I was forced to invent...wasted a lot of their time and led to several false red-alerts being placed in the US
The former administration will make the very legitimate argument that the report is flawed because it relies on the accounts of accused terrorists. Mr Danner counters that it is reliable—"Indeed, since the detainees were kept strictly apart and isolated, both at the black sites and at Guantánamo, the striking similarity in their stories would seem to make fabrication extremely unlikely."
TW Note: this is the Int'l Red Cross' analysis, they are not Amnesty International or ACLU, organizations that many regard as hopelessly worried about victims (even if they are not), it is the IRC.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/03/torture.cfm
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dick Cheney: Unrepentent Idealogue
TW: Many have expressed disdain for Dick Cheney. I will simply state that he represents just about everything with which I disagree politically. Some will trade much liberty for a perceived increase in security, he fervently represents that approach, an approach which to me undercuts the basis of our moral standing and actual security. His attitude leads to support for a a convicted felon, Mr. Libby, who may have in fact been a fall guy but a fall guy for a particularly single-minded policy of doing anything domestically or internationally in pursuit of that elusive security at any cost.
As a VPOTUS going on national TV to assert his POTUS is making our country less safe is a vile approach. Obviously should an attack occur the Republicans will pounce regardless of the circumstances, then see whether our liberties can withstand the assault.
Finally cosying up to Mr. Limbaugh merely demonstrates Cheney's like mentality. He is a devote member of the "my way or I wish you to fail" school.
From Politico:
"Asked Sunday on CNN if he thinks President Obama "has made Americans less safe," former Vice President Dick Cheney said: “I do."
Looking slimmer and relaxed, Cheney told John King on “State of the Union” that Bush administration policies on detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists – some of which were immediately modified by Obama — “were absolutely essential” to preventing another 9/11-style attack.
"I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles," the former vice president said. "President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.
Cheney said the Bush administration "made a decision after 9/11 that I think was crucial: We said, ‘This is a war. It’s not a law-enforcement problem.'"
“When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they’re doing – closing Guantanamo and so forth – that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required, and that concept of a military threat that’s essential if you’re going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks," he continued.
The former vice president, who now has a BlackBerry, said he plans to spend “the bulk” of his time in the next few months working on a book.
Cheney said he has talked with President Bush three times in recent weeks, and has expressed displeasure that his aide Scooter Libby – whose sentence on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice was commuted — was nevertheless left “sort of hanging in the wind” without a full pardon.
“I think he’s an innocent man who deserves a pardon,” Cheney said.
The former vice president noted that radio host Rush Limbaugh has challenged Obama to a debate.
“Hell, I’d pay to see that,” Cheney said. “I think Rush is a good man and serves a very important purpose."
As a VPOTUS going on national TV to assert his POTUS is making our country less safe is a vile approach. Obviously should an attack occur the Republicans will pounce regardless of the circumstances, then see whether our liberties can withstand the assault.
Finally cosying up to Mr. Limbaugh merely demonstrates Cheney's like mentality. He is a devote member of the "my way or I wish you to fail" school.
From Politico:
"Asked Sunday on CNN if he thinks President Obama "has made Americans less safe," former Vice President Dick Cheney said: “I do."
Looking slimmer and relaxed, Cheney told John King on “State of the Union” that Bush administration policies on detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists – some of which were immediately modified by Obama — “were absolutely essential” to preventing another 9/11-style attack.
"I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles," the former vice president said. "President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.
Cheney said the Bush administration "made a decision after 9/11 that I think was crucial: We said, ‘This is a war. It’s not a law-enforcement problem.'"
“When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they’re doing – closing Guantanamo and so forth – that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required, and that concept of a military threat that’s essential if you’re going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks," he continued.
The former vice president, who now has a BlackBerry, said he plans to spend “the bulk” of his time in the next few months working on a book.
Cheney said he has talked with President Bush three times in recent weeks, and has expressed displeasure that his aide Scooter Libby – whose sentence on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice was commuted — was nevertheless left “sort of hanging in the wind” without a full pardon.
“I think he’s an innocent man who deserves a pardon,” Cheney said.
The former vice president noted that radio host Rush Limbaugh has challenged Obama to a debate.
“Hell, I’d pay to see that,” Cheney said. “I think Rush is a good man and serves a very important purpose."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
TW: There are cynical and uncomfortable realities in politics. The worse Iraq got in 2006 the better it was for the Dems in the mid-term election. The worse the economy gets over the next few weeks the more leeway Obama will have to shape policy, but at some point this summer the same dynamic will shift to helping the Republicans (one will know exactly when that shift occurs when the conservative economists start raising concerns about the economy instead of downplaying them as they do now). The Republicans benefited politically from 9/11, they are certainly positioning themselves to do so again should another attack ever occur.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Cheney...
TW: George W. Bush gives the impression of a mediocre man thrust by circumstance and legacy into a role far over his head. Dick Cheney appears to be an evil man who sees himself above mere mortals, a very dangerous combination usually indicative a tyrant. Cheney perceives his own moral superiority which emboldens him to ignore dissent and dismiss alternative opinions. Our country was ill-served by this man.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Blameless (aka Shameless) Until the Bitter End
TW: W. Bush and Cheney are making the rounds as they near enshrinement into the Franklin Pierce/James Buchanan/Herbert Hoover pantheon of miserably bad POTUSes. Do they express any regrets, of course not. Why would they, right? It was not their fault, it was tough circumstances and a "toxic political culture". Pretty rich stuff emanating from the mouths of a guy like Dick "F You" Cheney and W. "How Did We Here" Bush.
From Politico:
"Faced with a faltering economy and a precarious national security position, President George W. Bush made the best of a bad situation and sought to unite the country in spite of Washington’s toxic political culture.
That’s how Bush views his tenure in office, according to a recent round of exit interviews he and Vice President Dick Cheney have done as part of an effort to wind up their administration on a positive note...
“I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived,” Bush told ABC’s Charlie Gibson, glossing over his long record as a deregulator, which stretches back to his time as governor of Texas...
“[Bush] I’ll be frank with you. I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history,” he told Gibson. “I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.” [TW: A truly insightful thinker until the bitter end indeed]"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16800.html
From Politico:
"Faced with a faltering economy and a precarious national security position, President George W. Bush made the best of a bad situation and sought to unite the country in spite of Washington’s toxic political culture.
That’s how Bush views his tenure in office, according to a recent round of exit interviews he and Vice President Dick Cheney have done as part of an effort to wind up their administration on a positive note...
“I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived,” Bush told ABC’s Charlie Gibson, glossing over his long record as a deregulator, which stretches back to his time as governor of Texas...
“[Bush] I’ll be frank with you. I don’t spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history,” he told Gibson. “I guess I don’t worry about long-term history, either, since I’m not going to be around to read it.” [TW: A truly insightful thinker until the bitter end indeed]"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16800.html
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Approving the People Not the Policies
From Craig Crawford:
"Yikes, not only does Karl Rove approve of Barack Obama's national security team. So does Dick Cheney. What is going on here? As a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama could not have been more scathing in his critiques of George W. Bush's foreign policy. But as president-elect, Obama appears to be installing a continuation of the incumbent's agenda. Wow, what happened to change? Or did Obama learn something in those secret intelligence briefings that perhaps the rest of us would be better off not knowing?"
TW: Crawford makes the huge leap that since Rove and Cheney express comfort with some of the personnel selected by Obama (Clinton, Gates, Jones) that Obama is now no longer for change. Crawford apparently did not read the Cheney interview. While Cheney expressed admiration for some of the Obama picks (but not say Susan Rice UN Amb.-nominee), Crawford ignored Cheney's continued dogmatic support for policies Obama strongly opposes (torture, Guantanamo, the need to have attacked Iraq originally). It is not the people, it is the policy. Again who has a greater chance of changing policy a bunch of doctrinaire doves or a group of moderates commanded by a progressive?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY_OBAMA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Yikes, not only does Karl Rove approve of Barack Obama's national security team. So does Dick Cheney. What is going on here? As a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama could not have been more scathing in his critiques of George W. Bush's foreign policy. But as president-elect, Obama appears to be installing a continuation of the incumbent's agenda. Wow, what happened to change? Or did Obama learn something in those secret intelligence briefings that perhaps the rest of us would be better off not knowing?"
TW: Crawford makes the huge leap that since Rove and Cheney express comfort with some of the personnel selected by Obama (Clinton, Gates, Jones) that Obama is now no longer for change. Crawford apparently did not read the Cheney interview. While Cheney expressed admiration for some of the Obama picks (but not say Susan Rice UN Amb.-nominee), Crawford ignored Cheney's continued dogmatic support for policies Obama strongly opposes (torture, Guantanamo, the need to have attacked Iraq originally). It is not the people, it is the policy. Again who has a greater chance of changing policy a bunch of doctrinaire doves or a group of moderates commanded by a progressive?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY_OBAMA?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)