Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

A minute of news, in case you missed it.


BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Repuglicans, every last mother's son of them:
George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent': 

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq

They aided and abetted terrorism by incarcerating innocent men, by torturing innocent men and giving innocent men reason to want retaliation. I say yes, I want my country back, back from the Repuglicans who stole the very essence of America, they stole everything this country stands for: truth, justice, and the rule of law!

This of course adds credence to that supposed "conspiracy theory" that Iraq was the key to their plan for world domination. History will prove Richard Nixon was but a passing irritation when compared to Bush/Cheney and the rest of the gang of Repuglicans!  

To all those crazy Repuglicans who supported every Bush/Cheney move, including torture and abuse, and who want America to fail today, all those just-say-NO sons of treason, I say: Go to hell, where you belong. Do your damage elsewhere because I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!


And now you know how and why pedophilia runs rampant and is ignored in the Catholic Church, all because the 13 year old altar boys wanted it:

"There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you."

...That's Spanish Bishop Bernando Alvarez coming to the defense of Catholic priests who've raped children — but they only raped the slutty ones, the ones who wanted it, so it's all good.

Blaming the victim is not going to absolve the sins of priests, bishops, cardinals and popes, neither those who raped the children, nor those who covered it up.


This is what has happened in Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict's Catholic Church:

Church Secrets: Abusive Memphis priest reassigned rather than reined in: A troubled traveler, keeper of the faith had secretive past...


At least one CNN host isn't cuddling up to the tea-bagger right-wing nuts:
Sarah Palin takes a break from shooting wolves to appear at Michele Bachmann rally. You know, you have to love these two. They`re like the Lucy and Ethel of the lunatic fringe.

 Hooray for Joy Behar, a sensitive woman with truly discerning taste!

Proof positive mainstream corporate media is not -- I repeat: is not liberal -- from the Washington Post:


Two Republican stars -- Palin and Bachmann -- align for first time
Er, I'd hardly call them "stars." More like meteorites that will destroy this earth if they ever connect! Do we really want to go the way of the dinosaurs so many years ago, do we really want extinction, do we really want the Armageddon these two "lunatic fringe" seek so fervently?

BARBARA'S DAILY BUZZFLASH MINUTE


Let The Sun Shine In......

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Glenn Beck is an idiot (just one example)

Was it not Dick Cheney who said that Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?


Quote of the Day

by BooMan
Thu Apr 8th, 2010 at 12:37:42 PM EST


I generally ignore Glenn Beck because I don't want to do even a small part to give him the kind of attention he needs to make $32 million a year, but I just want to look at this onequote:


I don't know if you have seen the debt clock, but the debt is unsustainable. We're about to go out of business.People who are only playing the political games will ask: Where were you when George Bush was spending? It doesn't matter. I'm here now. Where are you now?

And before Dubya Bush, we might have asked where the budget hawks were when Reagan was spending. When Poppy Bush, in an effort at post-Reagan fiscal sanity, broke his 'read-my-lips-no-new-taxes' pledge, the 'budget hawks' threw him out of office.

What the American people need to understand about Republicans is that when they are out of power they are against any federal spending on anything other than weapons and immigration enforcement (better if these two things can be combined). But, when Republicans are in power, they spend freely and run up staggering debts. When the bill comes due and they get replaced by Democrats, they dismiss critics of their profligate spending by saying "It doesn't matter. I'm here now," and go right back to advocating balanced budgets.

In other words, now that they are no longer in control of the federal treasury, they are going back to their roots as an opposition party. But, even if you agree with them about the need to have a balanced budget, there is no reason to believe them when they say they will create one if put back in charge. They won't. And there is a simple reason for that. They will never raise taxes even when the economic times call for tax hikes. In fact, they will reduce taxes to the maximum degree possible. But they won't make corresponding cuts in federal programs. So, the result, every time, is staggering debt.

It pays to look at the conservative ideology as something that developed over decades in the minority in Congress. From the end of World War Two until 1995, the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives for a total of four years (1947-49 and 1953-55). So, modern conservative ideology is built on opposing the federal government's spending priorities (and, really, any spending at all). It's an ideology that takes no account of an actual governing ideology. 

Again, other than spending on weapons and a Great Wall of Mexico, they have no fiscal priorities besides tax cuts (primarily for the wealthiest). The Republicans spent so long not being able to control the purse strings that they lost any interest in arguing over how the money should be spent. They just want to take the money out of the purse. But, hand them the purse, and they'll spend money just as lavishly as the Democrats and then they'll max out the credit cards for good measure.

So, my answer to Glenn Beck is that he should go with his real calling: rodeo clown. It doesn't pay as well, but he'd sleep better at night.


Let The Sun Shine In......

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Whose Had Enough Of The Cheney Cuckoo Clocks?



by Laura Flanders
At what point do we call them the family of mass intimidation and simply stop playing into the Cheney clan’s tired old terror tactics?
Liz is the latest. Cheney child number one made the headlines this week, with an innuendo-laced video questioning the loyalty of lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees. “The Al Qaeda 7: Who are they?" Asks the voice on a video released by Cheney's supposedly nonprofit, non-partisan new hit squad. (They call it an advocacy group?)
Liz is playing from a battered old family play book. Shortly after September 11, it was her mother out there, accusing people of lack of patriotism. Lynne Cheney teamed up with Senator Joseph Lieberman to release a report which accused colleges and universities of being the “weak link in America’s response” and naming 117 professors and students whom they called “short on patriotism" and "hostile to the US and western Civilization."
Not to be outdone by his women, barely a month has passed between 2001 and today in which Darth Vader patriarch Dick Cheney didn’t accuse some Democrat or another of endangering the homeland. The former vice president's training in bait and snitch dates back to the 60s when when he spied on Students for A Democratic Society meetings, jotting down names for his then-boss Donald Rumsfeld in an attempt to cut government funding for public colleges.
Teachers, lawyers, politicians... in case it’s not entirely clear, the Cheneys aren’t too hot on the independent professions of a free democracy, but they are red hot for the contemporary equivalent of red-baiting and they've gotten it down pat; how to harness the money media to do their bidding.
After all, it's thanks to the media it works. Even concerted attacks on campus progressives, lawyers, and political candidates don't successfully discredit their targets without the help of the media who carry the allegations and innuendos. Facts be damned, it's the accusations that do the work: intimidating scholars, chilling freedom of expression, driving lawyers and politicians out of the line of fire.
The media -- like FOX -- who went ahead this week and obediently printed the names of the Cheney-tagged "7" place the dead horse heads in the beds. Without them, the Cheney mob are simply name callers.
It's time the media started greeting Cheneyisms with the reaction they deserve. Snore. And most important of all, silence.
The F Word is a regular commentary by Laura Flanders, the host of GRITtv which broadcasts weekdays on satellite TV (Dish Network Ch. 9415 Free Speech TV) on cable, and online at GRITtv.org and TheNation.com. Follow GRITtvor GRITlaura on Twitter.com.
BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY


Let The Sun Shine In......

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Indeed, Give Ms. Cheney Just Enough Rope

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Because Congressional Republicans goosestep across our television screens and throughout our printed pages in the tightest of political formulations, an appearance of unshakable right-wing unity dominates the national scene.

Yet it is well to remember that not all is ideological bliss within greater ultraconservative circles. The RNC, for instance, is in laughably disuniting freefall; Tea Partyers continue to exacerbate the right's preexisting condition of genetic drift; and now we see another rift opening on the right, headlined in yesterday's NY Times as "Attacks on Detainee Lawyers Split Conservatives."

These attacks, as you know, have been spearheaded by Just-give-me-enough-rope Liz Cheney and her plucky little propaganda mill of Keep America Safe, which, as you also know, have, in the scurrilous spirit of Joe McCarthy and A. Mitchell Palmer, "questioned the loyalty of Justice Department lawyers who worked in the past on behalf of detained terrorism suspects."

These attacks, this questioning, indeed the entire Cheney humbuggery has been roundly denounced in and by the mainstream media; but, reports the Times, they've also "split the tightly knit world of conservative legal scholars. Many conservatives, including members of the Federalist Society ... have vehemently criticized" Ms. Cheney and her tactics, saying they violate the fundamental "American legal principle that even unpopular defendants deserve a lawyer."

How fundamental? Ms. Cheney's former law professor and mentor, Richard Epstein, of the University of Chicago, said bluntly that her extermination of principle is "something truly bizarre." Added Epstein, with either a dram of disingenuity or buckets of political naivete: "I don’t know what moves her on this thing."

Well, Richard, let's just call it irrational exuberance, upon which a veritable "Who’s Who of former Republican administration officials and conservative legal figures" -- including even the legally creative Ken Starr and several Bush II officials -- are heaping intellectual piles of abuse. On Sunday, these conservative Who's Who-ers publicly signed a Brookings Institution letter that sternly reproached Ms. Cheney & Co. as "shameful," "unjust," and "destructive."

Needless to say, some notable Bush IIers were elsewhere; that is, in characteristic disaccord with legal tradition and Constitutional wisdom. My favorite Cheney-defense came from -- who else? -- John Yoo, whom the University of California-Berkley now inexplicably permits to teach law:

"What’s the big whoop?" asked Yoo. "The Constitution makes the president the chief law enforcement officer. We had an election. President Obama ... can and should put people into office who share his views" and then the electorate "can decide whether they agree with him or not."

I repeat: This clown is actually teaching young people the law, or at least his most peculiar version of it, which sounds remarkably like Dick Nixon's, so famously encapsulated in the 2008 film, "Frost/Nixon": "If the president does it, that means it's not illegal."

Literal translation: The U.S. Constitution contains but the idiosyncratic vagaries of individual administrations; the document is valid, as presidentially interpreted, for four years or eight, and no longer.

This is real banana-republic stuff, which, oddly enough, when confirmed by the Yoo-Cheney School of Peculiar Law, means President Obama would in Constitutional fact have every executive right to install demonstrably treasonous anti-American, pro-Qaeda types in the Justice Department. Impeachment Articles be damned.

Yoo's runner-up in the "something truly bizarre" department? David M. McIntosh, former Congressman and Federalist Society co-founder, who Socratically enlightened us thus: "Was the [Justice Department] person acting merely as an attorney doing their best to represent a client’s case, or did they seek out the opportunity to represent them or write an amicus brief because they have a political or personal agenda that made them more interested in participating in those [terrorist] cases?"

And with that, as though there's any necessity to point this out, Mr. McIntosh gave us McCarthyism Unbound -- an Inquisitional, Paranoid and Partisan Style of governance in which every official is subject to endless investigations into past associations and curious affiliations with "front groups."

But I digress. The principle point to savor is that as ultraconservatism moves ever ultra, it leaves behind yet another bloc of vestigial conservative conscientiousness, as evidenced by the outraged peeling away of the "Brookings Institution 22," so instinctively opposed to the unpardonable scurrility of Ms. Cheney's "Al-Qaeda 7."

The Cheney Group. continuing to dismantle everything good about this country, is truly disgraceful and I'm sure our Muslim enemies are watching with glee and our friends, Muslim and otherwise, are watching with horror.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Friday, January 8, 2010

Bush administration left the nation wrecked.......



by Jacqueline Marcus

After the election, we believed President Obama would wind things down in the Middle East, and diplomatic solutions would replace costly military operations. For nearly 10 years, we've tolerated inexplicable excuses for invading Iraq and Afghanistan -- all in the name of a vague and meaningless term: terrorism. We invade and bomb people we've never met and then we're surprised that they want to fight back. For eight long years, we've watched the Bush Administration spend billions and billions of our tax dollars for the Iraq invasion that was never connected to the September 11 attack.


(Many of us did everything we could to prevent said horrors and stop them once they began. We in no way tolerated it nor did we support it. We protested in every way we could within the law, except for non-violent acts of civil disobedience.)

In these last nine years, what did the invasions accomplish? The illegal and indefensible occupation of Afghanistan and the expansion to Yemen have only served to increase hate and anger against the U.S. Perhaps if we provided bread instead of dropping bombs on these extremely poor people, rebels would have no reason to plot against us. Nine years later, it has now cost Americans over a trillion dollars to shut down a few hundred Islamic radicals. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost as a result of the U.S. military invasion in this poor region of the world. 



(I do not buy that the whack-jobs known as Al Qaeda are dirt poor Muslims who hate America because they are dirt poor. Osama bin Laden is one of the wealthiest terrorists ever known. The men who allegedly flew air planes into the WTC were all middle class in their countries. The latest nut-job activity was attempted by the son one of the biggest bankers in Nigeria. He was not some poor kid from Jenna. However, it's for damn sure that the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq did more for Al Qaeda than anything Osama bin Laden and his religiously insane comrades could have ever dreamed of doing in the near decade which has followed 9/11/01.The same can be said for the Gitmo debacle, Abu Ghraib, the U.S. gulags in Eastern Europe and the policy of torture which was employed. These terrorists are dangerous and no one should doubt that.Thanks to Bush and Cheney, they are more dangerous now than they were on 9/12/01.) 

Voters are boiling mad at both parties because they want these wars to end. They want their tax dollars to help them. They are sick and tired of a war economy that wrecked and shattered American businesses like a domino effect. Resorts are empty. Shopping malls are empty. The housing market is an endless sea of foreclosure signs. There are more homeless people than I've ever seen in my entire life. Fact: when unemployment rises, so does crime. Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" comes to mind. "As there is always more misery at the lower end than humanity at the top, everything was given away before it was received." Our pro-war Congress gave our entire public treasury away to military spending. It's been reported that the number of Americans on food stamps rose by 50%. We can no longer brag that we're the richest country in the world. The war profiteers destroyed the foundation of our middle-upper class economy, which was once a beacon to the world.


(Amen!)

In November, while in Maui for my struggling solar business, I visited my friend who was staying at one of the Wailea resorts. This luxury resort looked evacuated. There were a couple vacationers from Japan and China, but very few Americans. We could sit in the hot tub or lounge around the pool without seeing a soul; and although it was great to have the entire resort to ourselves, it was rather eerie and frightening.

(The only Americans with the real money don't go to the same luxury resorts that you do. Most people cannot not fathom the kind of places where the Wall  Street crooks vacation.)

  
President Obama seems to feel that he must answer to the war criminal, Dick Cheney, the man who loves to torture prisoners before they're found guilty of the crime. I say this because we know there were many innocent Afghan farmers swept up in the al-Qaeda net, in the wrong place at the wrong time. No matter to Dick Cheney: waterboard them. Well it's time for the media and for the president to remind Cheney that 9/11 happened on the Bush/Cheney watch. It's time to put Dick Cheney on the defense for a change: how many millions did he make from this perpetual war via Halliburton? How many secret, offshore accounts, if any, does he have in his family's names? How many servants does he have? How many cars? How many homes and what are they worth during the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression? 


(Questions we would all like an answer to. Sometimes I think that Dick Cheney believes that he is still in jeopardy legally. A U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, said publicly that there was a legal cloud over the office of the V.P. Cheney believes that the best defense is offense. That should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention at all in the last 8 years. His whole damn family is trying to protect him and their inheritance of his war profits. Other Republicans are afraid to say anything against him. THEY ARE AFRAID OF HIM!)


The other day, I was at the local hardware store and I happened to notice a soldier standing in line behind me. I mentally debated whether or not to ask him if he's been abroad, and if he could clarify the "mission" to me. Finally, I turned around and said, as politely as possible, "Thank you for serving." He nodded his head. I then asked if he was in Iraq or Afghanistan.

He told me he's been sent several times to both Iraq and Afghanistan. He confessed that "they fixed it so that we would never leave." I asked what he meant. "We've invested too much to just walk away: military bases, equipment, we want the oil…we want control. They say 'stabilize' which really means U.S. control… but they (Afghans-Iraqis) definitely don't want us there." 



(Didn't Junior tell his friends from Houston, who visited him in the White House, that he had fixed things so that the in-coming administration would not be able to withdraw from the war? I seem to recall that his friends returned to Houston with real concerns for his mental health. This was found in a Houston Chronicle article.)

He was pretty candid about it. I asked one last question before thanking him and wishing him well: Are they building a lot of prisons over there? He laughed, "Oh yeah, they call them schools." His tone was somewhat sarcastic. 



(OMG!)

Think about it: What is the difference between a street gang killer and an al-Qaeda terrorist? 



(Street gangs do not have major oil reserves, nor do they threaten Israel or offer areas of strategic logistics in the middle east.)

Answer: No one gives a damn about the street gang member or how many people are killed (there are hundreds of gang related U.S. deaths every day). If he's caught, he'll do time in prison -- whereas, the latter, the al-Qaeda member, is worth billions and billions of dollars in terms of military defense contracts and operations. War is a big business, just ask Dick Cheney, but only for the few, war profiteering elite.



(Let's add up all of the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by our own religious and conservative far right. Tim McVeigh, the Olympic 1994 bomber, killings of so called "abortion doctors" and so on and so on. The flu kills more people every year than died in all the Al Qaeda attacks. More people die in car accidents. The list is endless. Nevertheless, it would not benefit anyone in the Bush/Cheney White House or Congress to whip up the fear about these killers.) 

We do nothing to end the poverty that leads to desperation, crime, and daily killings in our own cities. There are drive-by shootings every night in Washington DC, Chicago, LA, NYC, Honolulu -- across the country. Imagine turning on your TV and listening to the 24/7 media coverage on national security while bullets are blasting your windows and doors. There's no money for that problem. But there's an endless Pentagon budget worth billions of dollars for a hundred or so al-Qaeda rebels thousands of miles away in Afghanistan, hiding somewhere in the mountains. Go figure. 



(I am beginning to think this will never change. I'm sure it won't until we take Eisenhower's warning about the military/industrial complex, now the military-industrial-security complex, seriously. Until we demand publicly funded elections, the war profiteers and other corporate psychopaths will run the country.) 

No one is talking about the once wealthy business men and women who've been losing their shirts in this war economy. I remember reading in The New York Times that a real estate woman was making up to $180,000 dollars a year. Now she's on food stamps. Why should Cheney care about them? He and his family are sitting pretty with plenty of big bucks. Here's a flash for Dick Cheney: Everyone, including Republican voters, is sick of hearing about national security, especially when Americans are out of work and losing their homes.



(The economy of the country is a big part of national security. Doesn't anyone get that? Bush and Cheney ran this nation into the dirt, including trying to run to wars off the books, so that no one would know just how much the war debacles were costing. The SEC under the Rethugs was totally emasculated. The minute those clowns were elected with a rethug congress, the corporate officers, from sea to shining sea, knew it was party time.)  

Meanwhile, India is building some of the best engineering universities in the world while young American students can hardly read and write. That's what happens when a crooked government gives all the public funding to defense contractors for endless wars that make the few super rich.


(The dumbing down of America is intentional. It's not merely the funneling of big bucks to the Pentagon.) 


If President Obama's goal is to diminish al-Qaeda plots or attacks, then he should withdraw our troops from their countries. That's what Middle East citizens want there, and that's what Americans want here. Otherwise, it's time to start taking third party candidates seriously, candidates who want to end the wars and this war economy that has created the worst depression in our modern history. 


(That won't happen until we have public funding for elections and stringent laws about lobbying along with major jail terms and fines for violation. The corporate special interests will not allow a third party let alone a 4th or 5th.)

BUZZFLASH GUEST COMMENTARY

Jacqueline Marcus' book of poems, Close to the Shore, was published by Michigan State University Press. She is a regular guest contributor to BuzzFlash.com. She taught philosophy at Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo, California, and is the editor of http://www.ForPoetry.com. She is currently promoting green technologies (solar & wind) on the island of Maui. www.GoSolarMaui.com. She is currently working on a new book: Corporate Media and the Erosion of a Civil Society.





IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Old Dick The Vice Calls Obama A Traitor



Saw Matthews' head damned near explode about this last night. Discussing the topic were Ron Reagan and Ron Christie. Reagan almost took Christie's head off when he alluded to Ron's father and torture in the same breath. Good on you, Ron Jr! 


In case the name doesn't ring a bell (or cause nausea), Christie is a very odd-looking, strange-thinking man who regularly shows up regularly on Cable Opinion TeeVee to defend "all-things-Cheney." I imagine he would defend murder if Cheney had a hand in it. Actually, I think he may have defended murder, since the torture policy which was and is defended, ad nauseum, by Cheney has, in fact, killed several people. 


By saying that Obama was giving aid and comfort to "the enemy" by allowing the current DOJ to prosecute KSM in New York, Cheney is clearly accusing Obama of treason. According to the constitution, which barely defines treason, aiding and abetting is treasonous.  


 http://www.newshounds.us/2009/12/09/dick_cheney_on_hannity_sudden_respect_for_the_constitution.php


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Cheney slams Obama for projecting 'weakness'



Damn! Ain't this rich coming from Mr. Deferment, himself?


What really did have untold consequences is the BuCheney administration's decision to let Osama go, cut and run like hell for Iraq where Rummy thought their were more buildings to blow up, or some such stupidness. Of course everyone knows that it was all about O.I.L......Oil, Israel and Logistics. (For the NeoCon wet dream of re-ordering the middle east....again.) 


When I say oil, I do not mean cheap oil. Surely we all understand that by now. Certainly not with two oilmen in the White House will the objective ever be cheap oil.

By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei 
December 1, 2009 12:22 AM EST

MCLEAN, Va. — On the eve of the unveiling of the nation’s new Afghanistan policy, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Barack Obama for projecting “weakness” to adversaries and warned that more workaday Afghans will side with the Taliban if they think the United States is heading for the exits.

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable — if not impossible — national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration’s unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.

But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.

Obama will announce a troop buildup in Afghanistan in a speech Tuesday at West Point, and he’s expected to send at least 30,000 more U.S. troops to the country. The White House also has said that Obama will outline a general time frame for the United States to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan.

But Cheney said the average Afghan citizen “sees talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win.

“Those folks ... begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies,” Cheney said. “They’re worried the United States isn’t going to be there much longer and the bad guys are.”

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama’s foreign and national security policy, saying Obama’s nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects “weakness” and that the president is looking “far more radical than I expected.”

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.”

Specifically, Cheney said the Justice Department decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in New York City is “great” for Al Qaeda.

“One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.”

The former vice president is splitting his time among his houses in Virginia, in Wyoming and on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, with a place at each for working on his memoir, to be published in the spring of 2011. His eldest daughter, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Liz Cheney, is collaborating on the writing and overseeing research.

During the campaign, Cheney recalled, he saw Obama as “sort of a mainline, traditional Democrat — liberal, from the liberal wing of the party.” But Cheney said he is increasingly persuaded by the notion that Obama “doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism — the idea that the United States is a special nation, that we are the greatest, freest nation mankind has ever known.”

“When I see the way he operates, I am increasingly convinced that he’s not as committed to or as wedded to that concept as most of the presidents I’ve known, Republican or Democrat,” he said. “I am worried. And I find as I get out around the country, a lot of other people are worried, too.”

Cheney said his worries extend to Obama’s domestic agenda: “He obviously has a very robust agenda of change — health care system, cap and trade, redistribution of wealth. I rarely hear him talk about the private sector.”

Cheney charged that Obama’s plans for Afghanistan are based on political calculations by “a guy who campaigned from one end of the country to the other, saying Afghanistan was the good war ... so that he could come across as somebody who’s not against all wars.”

“Now, things have changed. Iraq’s going significantly better because of the decisions we made in the Bush administration — the surge and so forth,” the former vice president added. “And he’s having to deal, sort of up close and personal, with the Afghanistan situation. And it’s tough — it’s hard. ... Sometimes I have the feeling that they’re just figuring that out.”

Looking ahead to 2012, Cheney said the likely midterm congressional losses for Democrats next year “point in the direction of a very competitive situation in 2012 — a very respectable shot for the Republicans of taking back the presidency.”

“There’s a lot of churning and a lot of ferment out there in the party today, and that’s basically a healthy thing,” he said. “Our adversaries — our Democratic adversaries — like to be able to portray the Republican Party as a bunch of wingnuts — narrow based, always have some agenda that’s not attractive to the public. ... That’s easier for them, and more fun, than dealing with their own problems. And I think their problems are significant.”

Cheney said “it’s far too soon to be handicapping” his party’s presidential nominee. “We’ve got a lot of folks, I’m sure, who will want to pursue it. I haven’t committed and don’t expect to anytime soon,” he said. “I think we’ve got a lot of interesting people in the Republican Party.”

Cheney at first declined to make any comment about Sarah Palin, but finally said: “I like her, personally. ... She’s charming, engaging. She’s got as much right to be out there as anybody else. Will she be a candidate at some point? How would she do as a candidate? Those are all questions that only time will tell.”

And what does he think about the movement to draft him to seek the top job himself?

Cheney says he sees no such scenario. “Why would I want to do that?” he replied. “It’s been a hell of a tour. I’ve loved it. I have no aspirations for further office.”

Join the debate on this story in The Arena.
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC



IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.



"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......



Senate report: Bin Laden was 'within our grasp'





By CALVIN WOODWARD
The Associated Press
Saturday, November 28, 2009 11:33 PM



WASHINGTON -- Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.

The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Staff members for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Democratic majority prepared the report at the request of the chairman, Sen. John Kerry, as President Barack Obama prepares to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate has long argued the Bush administration missed a chance to get the al-Qaida leader and top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Although limited to a review of military operations eight years old, the report could also be read as a cautionary note for those resisting an increased troop presence there now.

More pointedly, it seeks to affix a measure of blame for the state of the war today on military leaders under former president George W. Bush, specifically Donald H. Rumsfeld as defense secretary and his top military commander, Tommy Franks.

"Removing the al-Qaida leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," the report says. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics worldwide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism."

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

On or about Dec. 16, 2001, bin Laden and bodyguards "walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area," where he is still believed to be based, the report says.
Instead of a massive attack, fewer than 100 U.S. commandos, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalize on air strikes and track down their prey.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines," the report said.

At the time, Rumsfeld expressed concern that a large U.S. troop presence might fuel a backlash and he and some others said the evidence was not conclusive about bin Laden's location.

He Lied, he lied and don't be letting W and Vice off the hook so easily, either. It almost caused me whiplash, the speed with which we changed enemies from Osama bin Laden, whom we are told attacked us on our own soil, to Saddam Hussein who could not have caused an traffic accident in Manhattan.
---
On the Net:
The report:http://foreign.senate.gov/





IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Friday, September 11, 2009

A 9/11 Reality Check

Posted on Sep 8, 2009


A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Monday, August 31, 2009

Shining light on CIA torturers cum whiners

Sunday, August 30, 2009 

 

This report by Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick is already generating criticism as yet another installment in the Washington Post's repulsive effort to build public support for Dick Cheney's defense of abusive interrogations (regarding which see this satirical commentary on yesterday's installment). I think something more subtle is going on in today's piece. Pincus and Warrick are airing Cheney's argument that the investigation of CIA abuses damage morale at the Agency, only to cut it down by showing repeatedly that any complaints at the CIA are limited to those few officials who took part in the abuse and now stand to be held accountable for it.

Not only does the current article not align itself with Cheney's position, it provides ammunition against Cheney's argument that we should be concerned about the mental anguish of torturers who now have to suffer through an investigation of their conduct. In fact, some of that ammunition is new and will prove useful in rebutting Cheney's talking points.


For example, the article highlights the outrage that was felt by many CIA officials at the reports that were trickling back about the abuse of prisoners. Here it quotes CIA Inspector General John Helgerson saying that he was cheered on by the rank and file officer when he began his investigation into CIA wrongdoing:

Helgerson now says he received a steady flow of information, questions and encouragement during his inquiry. "Frankly, I could not walk through the cafeteria without people walking up to me, not to complain but to say, 'More power to you.' "
Former senior officials say that they were concerned with what was an unprecedented program and that as reports came in from secret sites alleging improper activities, they took action, including sending reports to Helgerson.

The article's central point is made right at the outset, in the last clause of the report's first sentence – which hangs there as a rather pointed rebuke of the torturers' self-serving whining:

Morale has sagged at the CIA following the release of additional portions of an inspector general's review of the agency's interrogation program and the announcement that the Justice Department would investigate possible abuses by interrogators, according to former intelligence officials, especially those associated with the program.
From there Pincus and Warrick go on to quote one of the lead advocates for abusive CIA programs, Alvin Krongard (who retired and went to work for Blackwater), to the effect that the release of Helgerson's report and hence the prospect of investigations means that morale at the CIA has dropped "down to minus 50". That's an assertion that the rest of the article proceeds to show is grossly inaccurate, so Krongard is exposed as an alarmist at best. In any case, Krongard's complaint is directly juxtaposed to a comment by Helgerson:

At the same time, former inspector general John L. Helgerson, whose review of the program was largely declassified Monday, said that the release, though painful, would ensure that the agency confronts difficult issues head on, instead of ignoring or trying to bury them.

As every complaint is aired, the reporters undercut it by showing that it isn't necessarily representative of the views held throughout the Agency. Indeed, they also point out that nobody can reasonably claim to know what all CIA officers think (a rhetorical trick that is essential to the arguments advanced by the Cheney/Krongard faction that claims to speak for the poor put-upon CIA officer):

It is impossible to extrapolate from the small sample contacted by Washington Post reporters about the effect the varied inquiries are having on the thousands of agency employees, more than one-third of whom are spread around the world. But among the dozens of officials who were part of the program and either remain active or have retired, feelings run high about how the White House and the Justice Department have handled the issue.

It's primarily those who are implicated in torture who are raising a fuss about investigations and the release of information about their activities.


The article also points out that CIA officers were wary of the abusive interrogation program from the start and had immediately anticipated that there would be legal problems in the future when the program was exposed...despite Bush administration lawyers' attempts to reassure the CIA that it had been indemnified and was free to torture away.

Read in this light, the Pincus/Warrick column does a public service by dismantling one of Cheney's most emotive talking points.
Posted by smintheus at 10:58:47. Filed under: general


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Cheney ‘OK’ With Violating Felony Torture Statute

Well, of course he is. Cheney is an embarrassment to all decent Americans who understand that violations of the Constitution and various treaties we have signed onto (and pressured other nations to sign onto) has nothing to do with Al Qaeda and their heinous acts of terrorism.


What a policy of torture does is give us a black-eye on the world stage, cause more hatred of the U.S. among people who did hate us before and hatred among those who did not hate us before Vice was seen begging Congress for permission to keep torturing people and cause our allies to distrust us.


Cheney should be the first man in the Dock at the Hague, since it is becoming more and more evident that we do not seem to be morally capable of holding our own war criminals accountable.





By Muriel Kane | Raw Story

In an interview with Fox News to be aired this Sunday, former Vice President Dick Cheney said he is “OK” with CIA interrogations that violated Justice Department guidelines and condemned the prospect of any investigation of abuses as potentially “devastating” to morale.


The 2004 Inspector General’s report released on Monday cited numerous cases of possible violations of the felony torture statute, which prohibits both “the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering” and “the threat of imminent death.”


Beginning on page 69 of the report (pdf) is a list of “Specific Unauthorized or Undocumented Techniques,” in some of which the facts “warranted criminal investigations.” Among the cases cited are one in which a CIA officer repeatedly choked a shackled prisoner until he almost passed out and several examples of mock executions. These are the cases that Cheney is now defending.


“The approach of the Obama administration should be to come to those people who were involved in that policy and say, ‘How did you do it? What were the keys to keeping this country safe over that period of time?’” Cheney stated. “Instead, they’re out there now threatening to disbar the lawyers who gave us the legal opinions.”

Does Cheney mean the lawyers who would basically find it within the law for the president to commit murder if he wanted to? Does he mean the lawyers who would have found it within the law to round up political opposition within the voting public and charge them with being supporters of terrorism or simply disappear them without charges or their right to an attorney?


Calling the extreme interrogation techniques “absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives,” Cheney insisted, “It was good policy, it was properly carried out, it worked very, very well.”


Cheney has consistently asserted that when reports on the interrogations are released, they will show that torture of detainees worked. However, recently declassified documents show no such thing.


For example, Cheney’s claim that “the individuals subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided the bulk of the intelligence we gained about Al Qaeda” does not necessarily mean that any usable intelligence resulted from the use of torture on those individuals rather than more conventional techniques.


What Vice means is that torture got information they specifically wanted, whether true or not.


As Raw Story reported two days ago, even a former homeland security adviser to President Bush has admitted that “it’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied versus when that information was received.”


Cheney further described Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to proceed with a probe of detainee abuse as an “outrageous political act.” He blamed President Obama for “trying to duck the responsibility of what’s going on here” when he indicated that the decision was the attorney general’s to make. Read more.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Cheney's torture claims debunked; will the media say so?

Or are they still afraid of Cheney and/or Bush?

Cheney's 'Fodder'

8/28/09

The release of a 2004 CIA inspector general's report on the agency's "enhanced interrogation" techniques, along with two other previously classified memos, has thrown a harsh spotlight on former Vice President Dick Cheney's oft-repeated pro-torture arguments. But corporate media seem intent on deflecting much of that glare.

 

Earlier this year, Cheney spent weeks on the airwaves, explaining that these CIA memos would back up his argument that torture provided valuable intelligence that helped thwart attacks against the United States (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/29/09). But the heavily redacted documents don't appear to do that. Of the two that Cheney asserted would help his case, reporter Spencer Ackerman noted (Washington Independent, 8/24/09) they "actually suggest the opposite of Cheney's contention: that non-abusive techniques actually helped elicit some of the most important information the documents cite in defending the value of the CIA’s interrogations."

 

Some reporters managed to reach the opposite conclusion, though how they did so was unclear. On the CBS Evening News (8/25/09), reporter Bob Orr said: "The once-secret documents do support the claims of former Vice President Dick Cheney that harsh interrogations at times did work. Interviews with prisoners helped the U.S. capture other terror suspects and thwart potential attacks, including Al-Qaeda plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi and fly an airplane into California's tallest building." The problem is, whatever one makes of the CIA's argument that their interrogations yielded valuable intelligence, there's nothing in the documents newly available to the public--and to CBS--that actually argues this intelligence was produced by the torture techniques like waterboarding that Cheney so publicly defended.

 

As Ackerman told CounterSpin (8/28/09): Cheney and his supporters' argument "depends a lot on conflating the difference between saying the documents show that valuable [intelligence] came from detainees in the program, and then saying that it came from the enhanced interrogation techniques themselves.... That's a conflation that has served the former vice president's purposes."

 

Many other accounts treated the release of these documents as another chance to play "he said/she said." An August 26 Los Angeles Times headline read, "CIA Interrogation Memos Provide Fodder for Both Sides." What sort of "fodder" they gave to Cheney's side wasn't evident in the story itself, which pointed out that the CIA documents "are at best inconclusive--attesting that captured terrorism suspects provided crucial intelligence on Al-Qaeda and its plans, but offering little to support the argument that harsh or abusive methods played a key role."

 

ABC reporter Brian Ross (8/25/09) managed to convey the lack of evidence for Cheney in the documents, but inexplicably still left things up in the air: "Nowhere in the reports, however, does the CIA ever draw a direct connection between the valuable information and the specific use of the harsh tactics. So, Charlie, there's just enough for both sides to argue about, while CIA officers in the field are left to figure out just what is expected of them."

 

NBC's Andrea Mitchell (8/25/09) sounded a similar note, explaining that "administration officials say there is no way to know whether the same information could have been obtained...without waterboarding" and airing a quote from an Amnesty International spokesperson pointing out that Al-Qaeda detainee Khalid Sheik Mohammed told the Red Cross that he lied "to mislead his interrogators and make them stop"--but then concluding: "An argument experts say that may never be resolved."

 

As FAIR noted in May, media's willingness to give Cheney a platform in the debate over torture shifted the discussion away from the central issue that torture is illegal under both U.S. and international law, and focused attention instead on torture's efficacy. The media allowed Cheney to push the discussion in this direction, in large part because Cheney assured that these secret documents would show that he was right. Now that it's clear they do not, will the media outlets that gave Cheney a platform continue to let him off the hook?



IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Saturday, August 29, 2009

U.S. Interrogators In Favor of Crminal Investigation

The article below reflects what our source, a former Intel. operative, told us and it certainly fits with common sense which, unfortunately, isn't all that common in American anymore.


Support for a wide-ranging criminal investigation into the Bush administration's use of torture has grown to include a former top FBI interrogator and a career military intelligence officer with more than two decades of experience conducting interrogations.
   
Jack Cloonan, a former FBI security and counterterrorism expert who was assigned to the agency's elite Bin Laden Unit, and Col. Steve Kleinman, a career military intelligence officer recognized as one of the Defense Department's most effective interrogators, said ignoring clear-cut evidence of interrogation-related crimes would encourage more law-breaking in the future.

Cloonan and Kleinman, who conducted interrogations of terror suspects after 9/11, disputed claims by former CIA Director Michael Hayden and Republican lawmakers that a criminal investigation would damage intelligence gathering and could lead to another 9/11-type attack on the United States.

In an interview, Cloonan and Kleinman said Hayden and the lawmakers were sounding "false alarms" in an effort to keep serious crimes from being exposed. "What this is really about is cover your ass," Cloonan said. "To suggest [intelligence gathering] will come to a screeching halt if there were an investigation is not accurate."
   

Cloonan, who retired in 2002 after more than 25 years in the FBI, said he doesn't believe an investigation would lead to a terrorist attack. Kleinman, who most recently served as a senior adviser on a director of national intelligence-commissioned study on strategic interrogation, agreed.


"I'm a professional interrogator, I have 25 years of experience in this and I don't have any concern whatsoever that an investigation into how we conducted ourselves since 9/11 would in any way undermine our ability to continue gathering intelligence," Kleinman said.


Furthermore, Kleinman and Cloonan believe many of their colleagues in the intelligence community share their views. But many are unable to speak out publicly, Kleinman said, "because to do so is almost a career ender."

Kleinman and Cloonan added that the outside contractors and the interrogators, who lacked the training and experience, are the ones who saw the use of torture as a means to gain valuable information. Moreover, they are the ones who fear an investigation.


"The people who are true professionals don't see anything wrong with an investigation," Kleinman said. "I conducted interrogations in three separate military campaigns. I can look back if they called me in tomorrow and I would not even be thinking about getting liability insurance."

 

Investigation Opposed


Ex-CIA Director Hayden had a different view. At a panel discussion on the outsourcing of intelligence last Thursday, Hayden said an investigation, "no matter how narrowly defined," would undermine counterterrorism efforts.


"Continuing looking back, continuing to pull these good people through a knothole will teach people never to play to the edge, will teach people 'yeah I got an opinion from Justice and I know the President wants me to do it and the director [of the CIA] says it's a good thing and I know I'm capable of doing it but I just don't think so.'


"We will teach timidity to a workforce we need to be vigorous and active. And no matter how narrowly defined this look back might be it'll start pulling threads, you'll have a significant number of agency folks being pulled through this process, in my mind, to no good," he said.


A day earlier, nine Republican senators sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder saying a criminal investigation into the CIA's interrogation practices would jeopardize the "security for all Americans" and "chill future intelligence activities."


Cloonan, Kleinman and Matthew Alexander, who was the senior interrogator for the task force in Iraq that tracked down al-Qaeda-in-Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2006, sent a letter on Friday to the chairs of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees calling for the creation of a bipartisan commission to "assess policy making that led to use of torture and cruelty in interrogations." ("Matthew Alexander" is a pseudonym used by the interrogator for security reasons.)


They wrote that a special counsel is an "important step forward" by reaffirming "the enduring power of our system of checks and balances."


"The prohibition on torture in this country is unequivocal," Cloonan, Alexander and Kleinman wrote. "To ignore evidence of criminal wrongdoing would incentivize future breaches of law."

However, they added that an investigation and the potential for prosecutions "of individuals who violated anti-torture statutes alone ... will not prevent policy makers from making similar mistakes in the future."
The veteran interrogators said an examination was needed into the problems created when "policy makers ignored the advice of experienced interrogators, counterterrorism experts and respected military leaders who warned that using torture and cruelty would be ineffective and counter-productive."

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and his counterpart in the Senate, Patrick Leahy, have advocated a truth commission to look into the use of torture and other abuses that took place during the Bush administration.


But Leahy said he would not follow through on his plan without the support of Republicans, which he does not have, and Conyers's proposal never even gained the support of key Democrats. President Obama told lawmakers in closed-door meetings earlier this year that he did not support those efforts.

 
Heavy Costs


But Kleinman, Cloonan and Alexander said a serious investigation was needed because the Bush administration's policies "came with heavy costs."


"Key allies, in some instances, refused to share needed intelligence, terrorists attacks increased worldwide, and al Qaeda and like-minded groups recruited a new generation of Jihadists," they wrote.

"A nonpartisan, independent commission with subpoena power should assess the deeply flawed policy making framework behind the decision to permit torture and cruelty. Our system of checks and balances is designed to produce sound policy decisions which advance our strategic interests and are in accordance with our core values of due process."
Kleinman said he also was "disappointed" with a Washington Post op-ed by CIA Director Leon Panetta, who urged lawmakers to "move on" from talk of investigations and to resist focusing on the past.


"Every world-class intelligence organization look at where they come from to get better," Kleinman said. "I think it's critical a lot of people say this is a witch hunt. I think they're wrong."

Cloonan and Kleinman also doubted claims, like those made by Dick Cheney, that the use of torture produced actionable intelligence, the type that helped prevent another terrorist attack on US soil and "saved hundreds of thousands of lives," to quote the former vice president.

Cloonan said he had a "long conversation" with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee after he testified before the panel last year and was told that there isn't a smoking-gun document that will show torture was effective on any of the high-value detainees who were brutally tortured.


Kleinman noted that the news media reported over the weekend that the CIA's inspector general report will show that agency interrogators conducted a mock execution, brandishing a gun and a power drill during the interrogation of at least one detainee.


"I defy anybody in the intelligence community to bring forward the research, the thoughtful objective analysis that purports to support that mock executions is a consistent and effective means of getting accurate information from people," Kleinman said. "Show me the studies that say causing a great deal of fear is consistently successful in getting useful information. 'Cause there won't be.


"What people are doing is they're just scrambling because they don't know what else to do. They're scrambling for some sort of technique and they're just using things that they think 'well that will scare me so it must scare them. It would make me talk so it must make them talk.'


"Sure, they'll talk. But they're talking because they are afraid they are going to die. And they will say anything to keep from dying."


By Jason Leopold, the editor in chief of The Public Record, www.pubrecord.org.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......