Politico: Waterboarding Is Only "Torture To Critics"

Politico was stung by the criticisms of it as Dick Cheney's mouthpiece. So they published this rather ridiculous "nuanced" piece by Allen and Vandehei, 2 of their heavy hitters. It is embarrassingly pusillanimous. But I bet they think it is brave. In any event, there is one part that I find particularly objectionable:

Obama has pulled back on what he sees as the most inexplicable overreaches of the Bush-Cheney years — the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (“torture,” to critics) [. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) You can have any opinion you want about waterboarding, but it is a fact that it is defined as "torture" under the relevant international treaties and federal law. That is a fact. In short, it is not "torture" to critics, it is "torture" under the law. And there is no dispute that the Bush Administration sanctioned waterboarding. If a news organization is too frightened to publish a factual statement, then what value does it have as a news organization? None. More . . .

Politico's primary function is as a right leaning gossip sheet and source of talking points, not a news organization. Occasionally you might break news. But mostly you break gossip. Embrace your identity, Politico. Be Cheney's media outlet. Stop worrying about your critics. You are what you are. We all know it. And you know we know it.

Speaking for me only

< Biathlon Open Thread | R.I.P. Doug Fieger, The Knack >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Holy Pusillanimous :) (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 04:38:31 PM EST
    We are currently getting better intel now than the Bush administration ever did or ever had a hope of getting.  Of course we are a bit more risk taking when it comes to those in field right now but that was always risky, and now everyone out there doing this is can go home with a soul at the end.

    And the proof of your claim is what?? (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    Well, the Obama adminstration (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by observed on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:20:12 PM EST
    has not released detainees who  went on to make terrorist attacks, yet.
    That's one example.

    That may or may not be true (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 06:01:00 PM EST
    and it has nothing to do with intel.

    You'll say this till the day you die (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:29:46 AM EST
    too, just as you insist that we could have won the Vietnam War.  

    You'll just have to wait for the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:36:15 PM EST
    report Jim, and then me doing the Na Na Na Na Naaaaaa Naa dance.  And I will Jim....I will

    Please post on (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 09:08:30 PM EST
    You Tube.

    And there is going to be a report showing that (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 06:05:06 PM EST
    the CIA under Obama has prevented terrorists from flying into buildings in LA? Attacking Fort Dix?

    Trying to blow up airplanes over Detroit by undie bombers?

    Oh, wait. That did happen..

    I know. I know. Obama was for intel before he was against intel...

    "You have the right to remain silent..."


    No need for such a report, ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    ... given that the exaggerations/lies from the Bush administration were debunked long ago, including the fact that the waterboarding of KSM (allegedly the source of intel preventing the plot) occurred - according to the Bush administration - over a year after the plot was foiled.  Then there was the fact that numerous counterterrorism officials expressed doubt that the plot ever advanced beyond the initial planning stages or posed a serious threat.

    The CIA prevented the Fort Dix plot?  Uhhhm, ... no.  That would be the FBI who did that ... you know, .... the law enforcement agency.  I know, I know ... imagine the nerve of the Obama administration, treating the underwear bomber like a criminal suspect and mirandizing him, so that his statements could be used in any prosecution against him.  Bush would never have done that!

    Oh, ... wait ...

    ... nevermind.

    Besides, that was shoes ....... not underwear.


    heh (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    I'm remembering it was NW 253 on Xmas day..

    Anyway and anyhow... It's MT's brag and her cross to bear. Unfortunately you provided no wheels or even skids.... just claims... and we do have this

    Hopefully I will loose the debate. But I see no reason to think I will.


    Nice try (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 09:07:03 PM EST
    I'm not defending MT's claims, just pointing out the false claims you raised trying to attack the Obama administration's approach compared to Bush's approach.  Just to sum up:

    1.  The CIA did not prevent the Library Tower plot (if it ever was a serious plot) by waterboarding KSM.

    2.  The CIA wasn't even involved in stopping the Fort Dix plot - just good, old-fashioned law enforcement.

    3.  Mirandizing the "underwear bomber" (which you mock) allows those statements (and evidence derived from them) to be used against him at trial, which is why the other clothing bomber (Richard Reed) was mirandized after his arrest on GWB's watch.

    4.  When you say "we do have this", it turns out that, well, .... you don't.  John Kiriakou recanted his prior statements, acknowledging that, not only were they not based on any first-hand knowledge, but they were misinformation fed to him by others in the CIA.  "In retrospect, it was a valuable lesson in how the CIA uses the fine arts of deception even among its own."

    I have no idea (as MT claims) whether we're getting better intel now compared to the Bush admin, but when the cons have to resort to false information again and again to try to defend Bush and torture, they don't have to worry about "losing the debate", since...

    ... they already have.


    I didn't mention KSM (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:25:49 AM EST
    Do you often make assumptions?

    My point about Ft Dix was that it was stopped on Bush's watch, but I'll give you the point you seem to want.

    And since the source wasn't there, then he wasn't there for them to be right and he wasn't there for them to be wrong.

    Shorter. Who knows? I mean he never told'em anything, eh?


    And my problem with the undie bomber's arrest was the indecent amount of time he was interviewed before a lawyer was brought in and he clammed up.

    He should not be tried in a US criminal court. Tribunal at best.

    And if you think I'm wrong, wait til November!


    Ever Read TL? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 01:11:30 AM EST
    And my problem with the undie bomber's arrest was the indecent amount of time he was interviewed before a lawyer was brought in and he clammed up.
    Clammed up? Really ppj you should try to keep up with content other than GOP talking points.
    I'm demoting Captain Underpants, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to Private Underpants. [snip] Republicans are using him, just as they are using the issue of the 9/11 trials, to steal the spotlight and rally their troops to get them votes in 2010. How do they even keep a straight face while they are spouting their nonsense?

    The suspect has talked to the FBI for hours in recent days, offering what sources say is valuable, sometimes chilling, intelligence.... Abdulmutallab has identified his handlers in Yemen, including the man who designed his underwear bomb, and given extensive details about his training.



    Intel's value (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:45:53 AM EST
    is largely based on time.

    The, at best, very limited interrogation due to the Obama administration to charge him in a civilian court and immediately provide legal services is a crying shame.


    Virgina, New Jersey. MA..... (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    Nope. Local politics (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:01:37 AM EST
    VA, NJ, MA state wide and much more indicative.

    So it was a national story (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    It was a local election.

    But if you insist, 3 to 1 is good odds for electing or pokering.


    Just follow Rasmussen (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    And look at Obama's numbers.

    I think most Demos are whistling past the graveyard.

    The Repubs did it in '06 so don't think you are blazing a new trail.


    Speaking of graveyards (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    aren't you due back there?

    They're going to hold a teabagger rally tonight.


    What? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    You brought up the Library Tower plot as a defense of the Bush administration's intel gathering in a discussion about waterboarding.  Of course I assumed you were talking about KSM.  The Bush admin and conservatives have been claiming for years that the waterboarding of KSM prevented the Library Tower attack, despite the lack of evidence that the plot was ever serious and despite the fact that the plot fell apart more than a year before KSM was even arrested.  If you're not talking about waterboarding KSM, what's the relevance?  Are you saying you weren't talking about KSM?

    You really expect anyone to believe that?.

    Fort Dix - The FBI acted on a tip from a Circuit City clerk who saw a suspicious tape.  This is a reflection of the Bush administration's superior intelligence gathering how, exactly?

    "Shorter?""Never told them anything"?  No idea what you're even talking about.

    What was "indecent" about the amount of time that the underwear bomber was interviewed before being mirandized?  You mean that Fox News claim that he was mirandized after 50 minutes?  Actually, it was @ 10 hours.  Pop quiz ... is that shorter or longer than the amount of time Richard reed was interrogated before being mirandized?  (Trick question, since you have no idea).  Third, what makes you say he "clammed up"?  Doesn't appear that way based on these articles.  

    So now that your sole evidence of the effectiveness of waterboarding (CIA officer John Kiriakou) admits he was duped by others in the CIA and was wrong about the effectiveness of waterboarding, he's no longer reliable?

    Good to know.


    Gee.... They (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    interrogated a terrorist who had just failed in his attempt to kill hundreds for a WHOLE 10 HOURS?

    Wow. What's next, denying him bail?


    Maybe it's a comprehension issue, ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:24:09 AM EST
    ... but it's so consistent with the conservatives ... gotta be intentional.

    Try reading the articles again.  They interrogated him for 10 hours before mirandizing him.  The interrogation has continued and he's still talking.  


    I guess when the real arguments fail, it always helps to have a big pile of straw handy.


    And after being told he didn't have to talk (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    he just kept talking?

    With his lawyer there telling him not to?


    Everything I have says he was interrogated for 50 minutes. He was then given a lawyer and mirandized and shut up.

    You have proof otherwise?


    "Everything you have"? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Would "everything you have" be from Fox News?  The same channel that has, on on multiple occasions, claimed that Abdulmuttalab was never even interrogated?


    Actually, I already gave you two previous articles citing law enforcement officials who clearly stated that his interrogation continued after he was mirandized and he continues to provide information.  Then there's the testimony of FBI Director Mueller and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair on the record before Congress on Feb. 2 (it's on Nexis), where they stated: (Mueller) "Abdulmutallab has provided valuable information" and that "the interrogation continues despite the fact he has been Mirandized."  (Blair) "There are decisions that have to be made in which you balance the requirement for intelligence with the requirement for a prosecution and the sorts of pressure that you bring onto the people that you arrest in either form. It's got to be a decision made at the time. And I think the balance struck in the Mutallab was a very -- was an understandable balance. We got good intelligence, we're getting more."

    Or, you can go with "everything you have" ... Fox News and Sarah Palin's speech.

    Not really much of a choice.


    Law of the Internet (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    You made the claim, you provide the proof.

    But Media Matters????

    And he talked with his lawer there? Pleaseeeeeee.

    And as the survey showed...

    Fox is the most trusted...



    BTW (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    "And my problem with the undie bomber's arrest was the indecent amount of time he was interviewed before a lawyer was brought in and he clammed up."

    Really?  The you must have been absolutely livid about how the Bush administration handled Richard Reed.  Turns out, Reed was Mirandized 5 minutes after he was taken off the plane.

    Heh, heh ....


    Different context (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:15:04 PM EST
    There were no guidelines, no laws and no definitions when Reed was arrested.

    They exist now but have been ignored.


    Says who? (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    You can always tell when someone has no idea what they're talking about when they're purposefully vague in their answers.  There were no "guidelines, no laws and no definitions when Reed was arrested" in December, 2001?  Of course there were, including Bush's "Enemy Combatant's" Order (Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism), which was issued in November, 2001 , and detainees began to be held by the military shortly after the Afghanistan War began in October, as the court noted in the Hamdan case.

    Nice try, though.


    Now let me understand (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    The Feds didn't get it right, despite the fact that the bill had existed for a w h o l e 39 days....

    So that makes it okay for Obama's people to get it wrong after nine (9) years...

    Hey, whatever flics your bic.


    Who said THAT? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 06:03:23 PM EST
    You claimed that
    There were no guidelines, no laws and no definitions when Reed was arrested
    . I simply pointed out that your allegation was (yet again) wholely fabricated.

    Moreover, beyond the "39 days", Bush could have transferred Reed to a military facility at any time after his arrest as they did with Yasir Hamdi in Jan., 2002 and Jose Padilla in June, 2002.

    Guess he figured it was better to handle it as a criminal matter in the civilian courts.

    Either way, the "guidelines, laws and definitions" were most certainly in place.  Guess Bush was just ..... what did you say again?  Oh, yeah, ...

    ... "ignoring them".


    Yeah, all the infrastructure (2.00 / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    guidelines, etc... were (no doubt!) in place after 39 days.

    So your claim is that two wrongs make a right.



    Oh, now that your prior claims ... (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    ... have been demonstrated to be patently false, it's an "infrastructure" issue.

    You're right.  There were no military prisons at the time that could have been used to hold him, had the Bush administration chosen to do so.  Oh, wait ...

    ... there was that Guantanamo place, along with dozens of others throughout the US.  

    After the Justice Department advised that the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, prisoners captured in Afghanistan were moved there beginning in early 2000.

    BTW - You keep doing that.  It's not my claim that two wrongs make a right.  In fact, I think the Adbulmuttallab interrogation was handled just fine, based on all information made public to date (Well, except for your funny, outdated, unsourced Washington Examiner piece).  I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in attacking the Obama administration for mirandizing Abdullamuttalab 50 mins-10 hours after he was detained, while trying to excuse the Bush administration's handling of the Reed case, including his mirandizing 5 minutes after his detention.  Well, unless I missed your prior criticisms of the Bush administrations handling of the Reed case.  Tell ya what .... why don't you pull a few of those (with links) and demonstrate your consistency/lack of hypocrisy.  I'd be more than happy to humbly apologize.  I'll just wait right here ..... holding my breath.  

    BTW - I have to admit, ...

    ... it is funny watching your contortions in trying to make up imaginary difference/justifications.


    I just did (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 01:20:45 PM EST
    ... provide you with the evidence .... statements from the two highest law enforcement/intelligence officials, under oath, stating that he provided and continues to provide not only statements, but useful intelligence.  Now maybe you'd prefer actual recordings/transcripts of the interrogations but these would, of course, be classified.

    You keep suggesting he wouldn't make any statements after being Mirandized and that his lawyer would always be with him, as if that's evidence of the fact that he's not making any more statements.  "Mirandizing" a suspect merely means you inform them of (among other things) their right to counsel and a right to remain silent.  Suspects waive these rights everyday, tens of thousands of times everyday, as a matter of fact, and there is zero evidence to suggest Abdulmuttalab hasn't waived those rights.  In fact, there is evidence he has waived (and continues to waive) his rights by talking to interrogators.

    Media Matters?  Of course .... unlike Fox News, they have links to all of the primary sources of their articles and everything is fully documented, as opposed to say, Fox News's claims that Abdulmutallab was never even interrogated.

    BTW - Of course Fox is the "most trusted name in News" ... they have a niche audience of Republicans/conservatives who will believe virtually anything a "news" organization says, as long as they tow the conservative line.  Liberal/progressive voters, on the other hand, are more skeptical of all media, including real news organizations.  Plus, ....

    ... they know how to rebut clearly specious/false arguments.


    Back to Jack McCoy (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    I think his lawyer has to be there if he asks for him.

    And I would bet money that his lawyers have been with him during his questioning.

    And define "useful." Especially when uttered by people being pressured for the poor actions of the borg.

    As for Fox, all I know is what the polls show us.

    Funny thing about polls. The Repubs hated them in 2008 and love them in 2010.....

    And Byah and Kennedy and Dodd all will not run because they want to spend more time with their families... I am touched. Yes, touched.


    Yes, touched. (none / 0) (#83)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:43:34 PM EST
    Precisely my point (none / 0) (#85)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    IF he asks for counsel, his lawyer must be there during questioning.  You have no idea whether he invoked his right to counsel or to remain silent, but Mueller and Blair's testimony under oath is evidence that he did just the opposite - he continued (and continues) to talk after being Mirandized.  Your argument that he has "clammed up" because you think a lawyer must be with him during questioning is nothing more than speculation based on conjecture.

    Your last few points statements are just an attempt to change the subject ..... understandable.

    BTW - You do know Jack McCoy is a fictional TV character, right?

    Same with Jack Bauer.


    What? First you (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    tell me Jack McCoy is not real and now you tell me
    Jack Bauer is not real.

    Sir or Madam you have no shame.

    And speaking of fiction..... actually fantasy fiction.... You are claiming that after the Undie Bomber's lawyer has told him to say nothing and to demand his lawyer when questioned... the Undie Bomber will just ignore it...

    Gosh, that makes 48 look real.


    Stay Current Read TL (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 04:00:06 PM EST
    You continue to embarrass yourself with Right Wing talking points... Why not read, and absorb TL posts, before you insist on spreading disinformation from FOX..

    This should be no surprise. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is continuing to cooperate and provide information on the failed Christmas Day airline bomb plot. His lawyer is facilitating the negotiations....

    All those Miranda fears are for naught. Criminal defendants get lawyers. Lawyers review the evidence. If the case is strong and the evidence likely to be ruled admissible, they consider plea bargains that involve cooperation. It happens daily in courtrooms across America. Terror cases are no different. What throws a wrench into the works is when law enforecment officers fail to abide by the rules and violate a suspect's rights. Then evidence can be thrown out and there's less incentive to make a deal. If they just followed the rules, it would be so much better for everyone.



    Ah so now we have (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    Obama's DOJ cutting a deal.

    That will look swell in a campaign ad next October.


    So this guy's lawyer is letting him (2.00 / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 10:46:03 PM EST
    talk and get nothing back?



    His lawyer said that? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 04:00:00 PM EST
    What was that "law of the internet" you cited?  Oh, yeah ... "you made the claim you provide the proof."

    I made no claim about what his lawyer told him or didn't tell him, just what Mueller and Blair testified to - he has continued to provide information.  As I said, I have no idea if he ever invoked his right to counsel or spoke with an attorney, ....

    ... and neither do you.

    But you do have quite the imagination.


    Sure (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:25:50 PM EST
    You made the claim when you brought lawyers into it...or are you claiming his lawyers are inept?

    I did no such thing (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    In fact, to the contrary, I specifically said I had no idea whether he invoked his right to counsel, merely that he was Mirandized.

    You, on the other hand, suggest that he: 1) stopped talking, contrary to the only evidence to date (Mueller and Blair's sworn testimony), and 2) invoked his right to both counsel and to remain silent after he was Mirandized.

    Both conclusions are based only on your imagination.


    Heh (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 10:52:45 PM EST
    The White House is not disputing a report that FBI agents questioned accused Northwest Airlines bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before deciding to grant him the right to remain silent and provide him with a court-appointed lawyer -- a decision that led Abdulmutallab to stop talking and provide no more information.

    The news came in an Associated Press reconstruction of Abdulmutallab's first hours in custody. The AP reported that Abdulmutallab "repeatedly made incriminating statements" to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents who originally took him into custody. Then Abdulmutallab made more statements to doctors who were treating him for burns and other injuries. Only later did FBI agents interview him -- a session that lasted, according to the Associated Press, for "about 50 minutes." Before beginning the questioning, the AP continues, "the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warnings informing him of his right to remain silent" -- apparently relying on an exception to Miranda that allows questioning about imminent threats.

    After that, Abdulmutallab went into surgery. It was four hours before he was available for more questioning. By that time, the Justice Department in Washington had intervened. A new set of agents read Abdulmutallab the Miranda warning, telling him he had the right to remain silent -- and thereafter, Abdulmutallab remained silent.



    That's IT?!? (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    An outdated opinion piece from a right-wing rag?    Did you notice the dates/times of the AP "reconstruction piece" and the Washington Examiner piece?  Not only were they several weeks ago, but they were released on a Sunday afternoon/evening less than 7 hours apart!  You have the AP "reconstruction" story citing anonymous officials, and a follow-up opinion piece saying the "White House is not disputing" it less than 7 hours later!

    Are you trying to be funny?


    And the WH is still not (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 11:27:45 AM EST

    BTW - This thread is two days old. TL likes them to be current. If you have a further response, please take it to today's open thread.

    I love for people to tell me two wrongs make a right.


    The question is (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    what did the WH trade for what they got?

    BTW - I repeat my comment re the age of the thread.

    I am done with this one. Come back on a newer Open Thread or take a cheap shot.

    Your call.


    Yes, the WH IS disputing it (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    Hence the many news stories pointing out that Abdulmutallab is cooperating.  (I even used the Wash Times and Fox News to make it a little easier for you to digest).  The WH has repeatedly pointed out (and taken criticism for pointing out) that Abdulmutallab continues to cooperate to this day.  Just Google your own information ... there's a lot of it out there ... even better information if you go to real news sites.

    BTW - You keep saying I'm ssaying two wrongs make a right.  Just the opposite.  Two rights make two rights.


    My cross to bear (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:26:22 AM EST
    You are comparing your perception of the weight I must now carry awaiting the published proof that torture is much much less affective in dealing with terrorism than employing the best intel gathering, to the torturing of Jesus?  Interesting.....I mean I don't think Jesus would argue for torture either.  He's been there, done that....first hand experiences and all that.

    Please, MT (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:50:19 AM EST
    How are you this cold morning?

    I trust you are well and must tell you that the psychobabble is a hoot. I guess I will have to give up the "towards more colorful speech!"

    But leaving Jesus out of it, you know very well that I have no problem with waterboarding terrorists,


    Where does the term (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:52:35 AM EST
    cross to bear come from Jim?  And I'm trying to talk Josh into going to Huddle House for breakfast but he says he ate too much popcorn last night.

    Uh, it is used as a figure of (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:57:05 AM EST
    speech.... similar to "that dog won't hunt."

    If it must always be used in relation to Jesus, then I will have to dig up an Uncle who used it quite often..... said Uncle's entrance into church would have resulted in "the church (will) fall down."

    Icy down there?


    Roads are all clear (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    They were clear last night too.  The snow did get icy though night before last between the daytime melt and the night freeze but I stayed off the roadways and tried to comply with what authorities were asking of us.  The roads were all melted and clear last night.  It is mostly gone this morning except for Northern exposed grassy slopes and my Northern exposed deck still has some on it.  We have some sloping yards in my neighborhood.  It has become a crusty ice though now.

    We got about (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:37:16 AM EST
    an inch...and no one here can handle snow. If it's gonna do this every winter I should have retired in Denver!

    Take care and have a nice day. Gotta go now!


    You sound kind of put out (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 04:59:58 AM EST
    Jim.  Me remain silent?  We went to see 'The Wolfman'. I have a life too outside of taunting you on blogs.  I predict there will be report laying out the sheer lack of decent intel about what was going on in AfPak and surrounding Al Qaeda areas under the Bush administration.  Who needs intel though when your goal when it gets sticky is to just torture more people.  And how many months has Obama been in office and actually had to remedy THAT nightmare he was left with by the Bush administration?  I wish everything he has done thusfar was remotely as impressive.  And granted, he has the right people ironing out the details.

    Well, he sure takes his time, eh? (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 08:51:43 AM EST
    Or do you now think he fine on troops to Afghanistan?

    You already know I didn't (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    like how long it took him to boil down what he was going to do there.  Now that things are in action though Jim, I can accept that it took him awhile figuring out what he was going to commit to.  But the use of different interrogation was already on the books Jim or I would have never allowed my husband to go.  And my husband was already there when Obama was deciding on the troops to send.  My husband had to prove to me he wasn't going to be party to any BushCheneyCo style torture or he could be divorced by the time he got home.  I take this seriously and it is still disturbing that there is black prison site at Bagram.  And I did know about that when he left for Afghanistan, and I felt like I could trust this President because he had made serious changes quickly that were solely his to make.  And I'm very very proud of my husband's service, but not if that means being a war criminal.  Changing what sort of interrogations we do was one of the very first things Obama did.  And I'm fine with troop levels being where they are for our part at this time, please notice other nations are committing larger and larger numbers now that America has a sane leader too.  We have to and have had to heal trusts that Bush destroyed.

    That dog won't hunt (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    maybe he has a cross to bear... ;-)

    Serially folks...

    Yes MT I knew you, and I, were in agreement on his absolutely unacceptable dithering on the troop issue. Now you, as a good supporter, have decided to forgive him. That doesn't change a thing.

    And you know that I believe the CIA has a moral imperative to protect the country. If that includes waterboarding, so be it.

    Can Obama execute Prateus' Iraq strategy in Afghanistan? Doubtful. Bush didn't tell the enemy when we would withdraw.

    And is our troops cross to bear.


    It just pi$$e$ you off that he is (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    succeeding.  You are going to cling bitterly to your guns and your dithering Jim :)  Well just cling....see if I care :)  And Obama doesn't execute Petraeus' (your mispelling reminds me of some jarhead Roman wannabe emperor) Iraq strategy in Afghanistan.  Petraeus has not come to be where he is by only having a singular "Iraq Strategy" Jim, he is Mr. Counterinsurgency...remember?  The President tells Petreaus to see to it that his counterinsurgency strategy is executed in Afghanistan.  Have you really really been in the military before?  Oh yeah....and then Petraeus does that and Adm Mullen and General McChrystal have been solidly onboard with and producing the Petraeus counterinsugency strategy for a very very long time now......erm duh

    "did fine" (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:12:41 AM EST
    What did he lose (none / 0) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:16:18 AM EST
    with his "timing"?  I know what I feared if he did nothing, but that isn't what happened Jim.

    About 10 months of time in which (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    the enemy rested, resupplied and dug in.

    Where's your proof? (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:27:44 PM EST
    And you always talk about how what Bush did was a good job when it came to his wars.  If Bush was doing such a great job and left office supposedly with Al Qaeda on the run and only a couple of hundred remaining in the whole world....how can Obama be ten months behind when his course before he changed it was exactly the same course that Bush was on sans torture?  Oops no....scratch that!  He immediately after taking office sent 20,000 troops there too because we were getting are arses handed to us thanks to Bush and Cheney, and the whole region had spun completely out of control and the Taliban was about to rule the whole country again.  Wow, I can't understand how he got so far behind Bush's fabulous war strategies and tactics.

    Oops "our" arses (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    Proof (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:57:09 PM EST
    Your favorite hack says so...
    "Listening to former Vice President Cheney attack President Obama's strategic failures in the war on terror feels a little surreal; even from Cheney's point of view, the Bush administration's record was at best a very mixed bag," said Walter Russell Mead, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, in POLITICO'S "Arena" forum.



    Uh, the claim is that Obama has done (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 06:06:10 PM EST

    And your proof is???


    A mixed bag (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 08:26:59 PM EST
    is better than no bag at all.

    You make it sound like there (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:28:04 AM EST
    weren't other choices.  There were other choices and those choices are this President's choices.

    FWIW Biden had a few good moments on MTP (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    this morning, calling Cheney out as either a liar or woefully misinformed  One of his better performances.

    I think Politico mostly just breaks wind... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 07:02:00 PM EST
    or at least that's what it smells like; I stopped reading it a long time ago.

    That Politico cannot even bring itself to acknowledge that waterboarding IS torture, and instead has to make a snide comment about it only being torture to "critics," tells me that they should just stop pretending they have any interest in objectivity and truth, and admit they are Dick Cheney's biggest fans.

    That being said, it isn't all that unbelievable that the president who has embraced so many of the worst of the Bush policies would be able to "nuance" the whole torture thing.

    And that smells, too.

    Nice Demagoguery (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 08:01:23 PM EST

    t isn't all that unbelievable that the president [Obama]..... would be able to "nuance" the whole torture thing.

     Stinks even more.. no nuance, but to be expected.


    Ah, welcome back, squeaky... (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Anne on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 08:07:51 PM EST
    gosh, I've so missed your comments.

    It was and still is torture (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 08:26:20 PM EST
    I'm really tired of people trying to candy coat and glorify this issue. It was called torture after WWII when we executed Japanese soldiers for doing it. It was illegal then and it's still illegal now. Just because Cheney and Bush say it isn't, doesn't make it so.

    If we want to use these tactics then we should withdraw from the treaties we signed.

    We have a treaty with al Qaeda? (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    Who knew?

    Yes we have a treaty with the world (none / 0) (#60)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    We have a treaty with the international community and we are a member of the United Nations. I don't adhere to the philosphy of do as I say and not as I do. You lead by example.

    I still find it amazing how this whole deal has gotten twisted. I can remember the right wing screaming about the nasty KGB and how we had to fight them to keep our fredoms. Reagan made a career out of it. And now all those nasty things are just fine because we're doing them. Hypocrites!


    We have a treaty with al Qaeda? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    Who knew?

    I think that is kind of important.


    I'll go with the Jesse Ventura metrics (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by seabos84 on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 06:32:23 AM EST
    of course, in serious high minded uber educated uber credentialed uber serious blog-o-topia, who could take serious a guy who was in special forces and ... frankly, is a bit of a loon...

    ummmm, let me clear my throat, seriously, and sound like teddy white or david halberstam / broder / gergen / brooks ...

    there is a great youtube of ventura on 'the view' - and he says (I paraphrase) - 'give me a waterboard, an hour, and dick cheney, and I'll have him confess to anything...'

    oh yeah, he also said that if we torture we ain't better than them, and what is the point of being like them?

    too bad he doesn't have an advanced degree from an ivy writing tomes of truth, then he'd really be credible!

    Did Jesse mention (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 09:08:48 AM EST
    that all intelligence, no matter how obtained, is vetted?

    Vetted (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 11:53:21 AM EST
    by better people than the ones who vetted all that wmd "intel", let's hope.

    What intel were you relying on when you came up with that "There are no moderate Democrats" byline at your site?


    Observation of the current (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    Demo leadership.

    And I hope we now have enough spies in place to do the vetting.... Of course after 4 years of telling the world who and what.... they will all be dead.


    Apparently Bush - Cheney (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    thought vett meant evangelical veterinarians.

    Way to pick 'em.


    Btw, If Obama is your idea (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    of a "radical", what would be the right wing, The Fourth Reich?

    Ask me when they get in power (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    Woton and all the other aryan (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 12:34:08 PM EST
    god's willing, eh?

    I'll leave the religious (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    actions to The Church of Obama.



    A little late for (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 02:18:11 PM EST
    that sentiment, isnt it? Your pals tried everything but faith-based waterboarding.

    "Enhanced" Interrogation (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Eyepublius on Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    The so-called "enhanced" techniques exist, but they are illegal, unlawful and a war crimes and to the best of my knowledge are not/should not be part of any Interrogator's training. I am a retired Marine Corps infantry officer/former NCO and during my last 10 years of active duty I was a trained and experienced Interrogator -- torture of any kind does not work, but it does serve its primary purpose: to inflict pain - then hope for good intelligence later.

    Professionals, true professionals (i.e., former FBI agent Mr. Ali Soufan who broke Abu Zubaydah w/o torture and in the process got info about KSM) know that torture does not.

    For the life of me, why don't people listen to the pros and listening and clinging to the opinion makers who don't know squat about the techniques or purpose.

    I Have More Here

    ~ Dan Francis (Watertown, NY)

    I don't disagree with you about (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:02:28 PM EST
    waterboarding, but it's not a question of waterboarding alone: don't leave out mention of the 100 detainee deaths in captivity.

    Politico has value as a gossip and tea-leaf (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:42:59 PM EST
    reading organization, not as a news organization, though I'm sure they believe otherwise.

    You nailed it:

    If a news organization is too frightened to publish a factual statement, then what value does it have as a news organization? None.

    If they call a fact a fact all of their anonymous sources will stop talking to them and they would have to do real reporting. Can't have that.

    Politico is readily recognizable . . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    . . . as a peripheral, soft-sell element of the echo chamber of horrors.

    Waterboarding is torture to (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    journalists. Seen any  recently?

    Hitchens volunteered (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    to undergo it - lasted about twenty seconds - and said afterward that it was indeed torture.

    That from the neocon's neocon.


    BTD, you're on a roll today (none / 0) (#22)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    keep 'em coming.

    BTD disemboweled Allen!!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by observed on Mon Feb 15, 2010 at 05:08:19 AM EST