WH Frustrated With Torture Talk

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War on Terror
Posted on Wed May 04, 2011 at 04:50:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sam Stein:

Officials inside the Obama administration have grown discouraged by the abruptness with which the news over the killing of Osama bin Laden has turned into a debate over the efficacy of harsh interrogation techniques and torture. [. . .] White House spokesman Tommy Vietor [said . . .]"I think this is a distraction from the broader picture, which is that this achievement was the result of years of painstaking work by our intelligence community that drew from multiple sources[.]

I have an idea for the White House -- how about saying torture does not work and was not a part of the picture of this operation. From Stein - "By most accounts, harsh interrogation measures including waterboarding did not play a role in helping to track bin Laden's whereabouts or his associates." (Emphasis supplied.) Is that too hard for them to say? If so, why?

Speaking for me only

< Pakistani Officials Say Osama's 12 Year Old Daughter Injured in Raid | MSNBC: Only One Person Armed at Osama bin Laden Compound >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

WH Frustrated With Torture Talk | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Because it's the (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 04:58:59 PM EST

HCR debate all over again in the messaging department. It's political malpractice and I'm not going to say more right now or I will make everyone mad.

Maybe they find themselves in the (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Anne on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:02:05 PM EST

uncomfortable position of knowing that, if they come in too hard on the idea that torture doesn't work, there may be calls to "look back" to the Bush years, when it seems an inordinate amount of time was spent finding ways to justify it.

Because surely, if we know that now, we also knew that then.

We won't be pointing any fingers (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 04, 2011 at 06:46:22 PM EST

or leaving anyone uninvited or we could inflame someone and they could hunt this President like they did Clinton. I think our current President fears all that beginning again. If he has a goal of smothering flames, he seems to have done a decent job of that in a way. Issa hasn't started the hunt.


: Wait a few months (none / 0) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:12:22 PM EST

or maybe not even that long I'm willing to bet.

To the Obama Administration I say: (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by lilburro on Wed May 04, 2011 at 05:54:30 PM EST

duh. How many times does the right wing noise machine have to take over the media conversation before you realize that's how this game works? As a great man once said, "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Someone might want to ask folks like Cheney and Rodriguez why they are so convinced that torture produced answers led to this operation. Because nobody has said anything really convincing or detailed - it is more or less "assumed." And I don't understand why years later Rodriguez is coming out with this apparently amazing memory for one tiny bit of information. It just stayed in his mind I guess, he knew it was just so important. And then - did nothing!

The Bush Administration is doing a master spin job - our techniques led to this crucial information by way of creating an atmosphere of "compliance" (as apparently no one dropped any tips while screaming bloody murder or while strung out from being sleep deprived) BUT the information wasn't actually that important ALTHOUGH we are entirely responsible for the success of this mission that we were unwilling or unable to carry out.

My guess is that the Obama Administration is just going to wait this moment out. I am sure they don't want to piss anyone off and "lower CIA morale." It also seems like, based on Panetta calling it an "open question," that they don't really know how to explain the tips. How do you account for the behavior of someone who has been tortured? Can't put toothpaste back in the tube, etc. It certainly seems clear that the ticking time bomb theory has been disproven though.

Anyway I think the GOP should defend the Bush Administration's honor by mounting an investigation of CIA torture practices...

So true, and it this is not the final (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 06:04:50 PM EST

lesson in that, then I give up.

Obama did absolutely the most bipartisan thing possible - get Bin Laden - and Team R still does not give an inch in the spin game. Time for the WH to stop expecting any kind of fair or decent behavior out of them or to think he has won an ounce of political capital.


: not even so much they shouldn't expect it... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Dadler on Wed May 04, 2011 at 06:33:17 PM EST

...but that, if Dem means anything anymore (which is doubtful to start with), they should KNOW that the R brand and its products ARE NOT GOOD FOR THE NATION in any form, and that legitimizing them IS BAD POLICY.
Sigh.

: Well (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:15:32 PM EST

I am prepared to give up on the Obama administration being able to handle the noise machine. They need to get Joe Lockhart or someone from the Clinton Administration that could message.

S. O. P. (none / 0) (#15)
by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:23:38 AM EST

for the GOP.

Rs still say the prosperity of the Clinton years is actually the Reagan 'miracle.'

Now we hear Rs like Palin crediting Bush for the Bin Laden discovery and the rest of the Rs claiming that torture under Bush should be credited.

It normally takes 24 hours or less for the GOP to organize their message. After Bin Laden's death was announced I heard Peter King (R-NY) congratulate Obama. The next day King changed his tune, crediting Bush admin torture for Bin Laden's discovery.


Two words (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 04, 2011 at 07:09:22 PM EST

Why? Two words: Bradley Manning....

: Word (none / 0) (#18)
by sj on Thu May 05, 2011 at 10:35:51 AM EST

Also because they want to keep the option available for future Bradley Mannings

While I agree with the idea (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by ruffian on Wed May 04, 2011 at 08:23:18 PM EST

Stein's 'by most accounts' formulation would not work either. Team R is playing in the gap between 'most accounts' and 'all accounts'. If they can find even one guy to say torture worked they will trot him out.

The only thing that would have prevented it this week would be if they had started the narrative at the point they wiretapped a phone call. Would have taken at least a while to get to the details that interrogation of a detainee played any part at all.

It's too hard for them to say (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by kmblue on Wed May 04, 2011 at 09:01:31 PM EST

because Obama gave a get out of jail free card to the Bush administration and then continued many of their practices. Admit to being wrong? Admit to being unlawful?

Perish the thought.

For Starters (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:10:59 AM EST

Don't let Leon Panetta answer any questions. I couldn't believe just how lame he was.

But Panetta's probably the result of general administration policy.

I believe they're told not to act in a partisan manner and that leads to a lack of clarity.

The muddled up torture question response is, IMO, the continuing stupidity of bi-partisan for the sake of bi-partisan. In this administration policy takes a back seat to procedural fantasy.

I don't think these people are capable of learning.

My Thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 08:45:12 AM EST

They killed OBL because bringing him in and taking him to trial would have lead to one place, Gitmo. Every piece of intelligence coming from there will have to be proven not to have come from tortured souls in court, which is something no one wants to deal with. Because tortured or not, that is going to be the first claim anyone down their is going to make.

And let's not forget, this is the CIA, and it wouldn't be unheard of for them to have made-up something to cover their A's when the torture S hit the proverbial fan. They destroyed evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed torture gave them some info it didn't in hopes of using 'it worked' as some sort of defense. And maybe it did, somehow that makes a difference.

I don't think anyone, present or past, wants to open that very ugly can of worms, so instead of speaking out and cornering themselves into a corner, they are just letting others guesstimate and leave it at that. The less we know the better seems to be the view of Gitmo.

Because (none / 0) (#12)
by gyrfalcon on Wed May 04, 2011 at 11:03:37 PM EST

remember, folks, that Gitmo is not the only place "detainees" have been tortured. From what I've read, at least some of the clues came from people who were "renditioned" to comfy places where they have a lot fewer scruples than even the Bush admin.

I am not at all confident that the trail of this info is utterly pure as the driven snow, and I think that's why we're getting so much hemming and hawing from the Obama administration as we are because they very much don't want to legitimize what the previous administration did, but they know at least some fragments of the info are at the very least suspect in origin.

2 cents (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by lilburro on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:07:32 AM EST

It's convoluted to the point that no-one who wants to say "torture had nothing to do with it!" could on evidence make an argument that didn't delve into deeper issues - what can we attribute to torture? Nobody obviously screamed important information between waterboarding dunks. And that is the whole rationale for that practice. And others. But to open that debate is to expect the MSM to be smarter than it is. I am guessing the Obama Admin is content to let the GOP struggle to take credit in the most indirect ways possible, about extremely direct assertions.

IMO there simply isn't going to be enough unclassified information to actually have a debate. Although there should be. IMO, it's enough to ask at this point, so, do we just beat the sh*t out of everybody until they talk, a week - a year from now? Is that what we do? So we can act after a unit devoted to the task previously at hand is shuttered? Act years after that? And then, decide that the most important information was sitting on the shelf for years? There are so many logical gaps there is simply too much to work with before asking why the Obama Admin is not slapping down torture left and right. And if they had any intention to say "torture doesn't work" they would've made the political space for it YEARS AGO. They were crossing their fingers hoping this wouldn't be an issue. Not the first time that hope has meant idiocy. If they're going to fight the RW noise machine, they need to mostly provide evidence that this information, 7-8 years old, was uniquely used by an Admin smarter and more focused on this goal than the previous one. WHICH IS CLEARLY TRUE. But I'm getting tired of beating my tiny drum, that's up to them. Stand up for yourself, this was clearly ACTUALLY the result of intelligent men and women in the CIA and the military taking the time to put the pieces together. It was the result of a search for truth - and torture just simply isn't that and never amounts to that.

Ugh. Tiny drum signing off.


: For the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by cal1942 on Thu May 05, 2011 at 01:29:19 AM EST

this is the change the conversation tactic.
The conversation immediately switched from the discovery of bin Laden on Obama's watch to the efficacy of torture.
Our side goes along. Tonight on MSNBC O'Donnell devoted a lot of time to the torture debate, falling right into the trap.