Updated video below
Funny coincidence about what I'm going to blog about here. I started rereading portions of the 9-11 Commission Report a couple of weeks ago after I discovered the real reason why Bush/Cheney ordered torture. All this time, I thought these draft dodging faux cowboys were trying to create an illusion that they were, you know, real rough and tough guys when they ordered torture. Bush/Cheney had not protected the country on 9-11, nor from the anthrax attacks…..the worst attacks ever in our history. Both those terrorist attacks happened on their watch. I just figured that they felt responsible, as well they should, and needed some made-for-teevee, warrior-like action to counter their utter failure.
However, even I couldn't think as cynically and twisted as Bush and Cheney were thinking. They actually ordered torture to produce false information tying al-Qaeda with Iraq. That was the very purpose of the whole Bush/Cheney torture agenda. It worked too. Bush and Powell used the bogus confession of al-Libi, later recanted, as part of a "marketing" blitz in September 2002 to scare Congress into passing the Iraq Resolution. Later, in February 2003, Colin Powell used the same bogus confession information in his failed attempt to "market" the fraud-up to the U.N.
Now, today we're finding out that the 9-11 Commission Report based some of it's most crucial findings on bogus confessions of tortured prisoners. Oh, my. Stop reading and go here.
I've blogged on several occasions that once the Iraq crime was fully understood for what it was…..then…..9-11 could be looked at more thoroughly. Perhaps that will happen eventually now because of the illegal and traitorous torture agenda of the last administration coming to light. We'll see.
But wait….there's even more.
Former chief of staff of the State Department under Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, wrote a blog piece. If you read it, you may find yourself saying, "well, hells, belles, Loretta….that's what The Reverend's been saying." You know, something like that. Here's a bit of it…..but you really need to read the whole thing.
"..what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop."
And I found this interesting….
What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?
Bush administration officials are in trouble. In light of the spineless Democrats, especially in the Senate, I have my doubts whether the Terror and Torture Twins will ever be held accountable….the Village would have such a sh*t fit. Having said that, the slow drip, drip, drip has a genuine Watergate feel to it.
Update: Rachel Maddow had her best segment to date last night on Bush/Cheney crimes. It's well worth a look….
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Rev, you've written so many different posts about this that I think you get off on saying the word "torture" over and over.
Why don't you start a fund for all the poor Al Qaeda victims ? That might make you feel better.
The people you defended over the last 8 years are national traitors and international war criminals.
It will make me "feel better" when they are prosecuted for their crimes.
If you are not offended by knowing that Bush/Cheney tortured for the express purpose of producing false ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, those phony confessions later used to deceive America into a war of choice…..what would you care about? What about pride in your country? What about good ole' American patriotism? What about, we're the good guys? What about the rule of law?
If Nixon was forced to resign over Watergate, and rightfully so, what should we do with traitors, murderers and war criminals?
You are right, King. We've known Reverend has daddy issues for some time now but this is some kind of psycho-sexual disorder. They could be related but I'd prefer not to think about that.
Authoritarians, like torture apologists and torture defenders, have the most difficulty with normal, healthy sexual outlooks. Authoritarians, you know, the Daddy Figures, are more likely to rape and dominate women, because they are….well….men. Men must dominate and control women. Keep them in their place.
In the same way, and using the same disturbed mental reasonings, authoritarians endorse the use of torture, particularly to get the ends they are seeking. When raping or abusing women, authoritarians are after compliance, unwavering obedience. When raping and abusing prisoners, authoritarians are "proving" they are dominant, while beating out false confessions so they can justify f*cking up other people.
Conservatives are most likely to be authoritarians.
Those are a couple of "issues" to ponder, no?
"Authoritarians, you know, the Daddy Figures, are more likely to rape and dominate women, because they are….well….men. Men must dominate and control women. Keep them in their place.
In the same way, and using the same disturbed mental reasonings, authoritarians endorse the use of torture, particularly to get the ends they are seeking. When raping or abusing women, authoritarians are after compliance, unwavering obedience. When raping and abusing prisoners, authoritarians are "proving" they are dominant, while beating out false confessions so they can justify f*cking up other people."
Isn't that how a real relationship is supposed to be, acccordong to Obama's religion. You could take that right out of Muslem law.
Avg. from henceforth you will be referred to as BelowAvg.
Truth hurts huh TBomb. I for one could care less what his religion is. However the muslims in the missdle east treat their women as Rev described, don't they? Didn't you see the story about the 14 y/o girl that was publicly beaten and branded a whore for wearing clothes that exposed her ankle?
Yes, authoritarian religions like Islam and Christianity have a habit of treating women badly. Second class citizens and what not. We have laws prohibiting open abuse here in America, whereas some Muslim nations do not.
One thing we authoritarian Americans now do have in common with those Muslim nations, however, is our appreciation for the finer art of torture.
Quite a feather in our cap. Don't forget….they hate us because of our freedoms.
Your post is rife with angst over daddy, Reverend. I strongly suggest you get help from a professional but if you could realize one fact it might help get you started back toward the road to reason–
Reverend, George Bush is not your father, and your father's sins are not his.
I'm fit as a fiddle, psychologically speaking. Thanks for the concern.
Rev says, "If you are not offended by knowing that Bush/Cheney tortured for the express purpose of producing false ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda."
You haven't produced any evidence yet that this is the case, and there is tons of evidence to the contrary. The link you supplied said that Cheney wanted to waterboard the Iraqi who was suspected of knowing of connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. That waterboarding was NOT done, not to mention that the entire American intelligence apparatus was quite interested in Al Qaeda's ties to anyone after 9/11. Why should Saddam be excluded, when he had known ties to other terrorist organizations, suspected ties to Al Qaeda, harbored international terrorists, and had terrorist training camps being run in Iraq ? You gotta be kidding me.
Your other link about Al Libi said that the Egyptians tortured him. Al Libi was a senior Al Qaeda operative with connections to Bin Laden, who was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.
The only thing you have proved is that terrorists were asked about Saddam in addition to being asked about other terrorist activities. What did you expect our intelligence agencies to do, just ignore any possible Al Qaeda connections to Saddam ? Just NOT pursue them ? That would have been dereliction of their duty.
The idea that the only reason we used EIT's on terrorists was to justify the Iraq invasion is ludicrous. Nobody in their right mind could believe such a thing.
And after your rant about authoritarian religions like Christianity mistreating women, I have to agree with larry. You got problems. You're intolerant, reactionary, close-minded, and filled with misguided hostility.
And you, my blog friend, are in a total state of denial. You'll say anything at this point as you try to spin torture into a democratic principle.
You are not being an honest broker with the torture evidence.
It's sad to see you turn your head away from very clear, and obvious evidence.
But, you did it during the Plame case too, which was basically about the same issue, so I guess you really are a Bush cult member. I can't find any other reasonable alternative answer for your state of denial. You'll defend the criminal Republican Bush administration no matter what the evidence suggests.
Facts no longer permeate your conciousness. Too bad.
Rev,
It is interesting how far scared people can twist the bounds of logical thinking to allay their fears. Don't worry though, there seems to be plenty of psychologists here.
The doctors are in.
You offered nothing to counter my post.
Rev says, "I can't find any other reasonable alternative answer for your state of denial."
Here's one. Al Qaeda killed nearly three thousand Americans on 9/11, after numerous attacks against American interests and others in the 90's. I don't give a crap about the well being of fanatical terrorist mass murderers of the innocent nearly as much as I care about the safety of my country and others against those same murderers.
What's your excuse for pushing 'be nice to terrorists month' ?
Mr. King,
Nobody gives a crap about their well being. You know very well that it wasn't just members of AlQaeda who were tortured. You should also know by know that those tortured weren't tortured as a last resort, either. You should also know that they weren't tortured to obtain information to keep us safe. They were tortured to keep Bush and Cheney safe from prosecution for their criminal acts.
This isn't just about those being tortured. It's about who we are as a people and what level of human decency we demand of our leaders. If we accept torture as policy, we admit that our country is no better than the worst in history.
King…your logic would have pre-empted any Nazi trials for crimes against humanity. Those Nazis argued they were doing what was necessary to protect the Homeland. Isn't that correct? Why, then, is it different with America?
Also, I think that you believe in the rule of law. Am I mistaken? Soon, I'll be pointing out the laws broken by Bush's torture regime. Can all laws simply be suspended in a national security emergency? And if they can, wasn't the world wrong when it prosecuted Nazis?
frank,
If we're talking about Abu Ghraib, I thought that was disgusting. That was abuse for the sake of abuse, and was wrong.
If we're talking about waterboarding three high-level Al Qaeda operatives at Gitmo, I have no problem with that. If we're talking about what the Egyptians did to Al Libi, I'm not certain what that was, but Al Libi was a high-level Al Qaeda operative too.
I do not buy at all the idea that Bush/Cheney tortured people to save Bush/Cheney from prosecution. That sounds pretty ridiculous to me. If Bush/Cheney had done such a thing, that would only increase their chances of being prosecuted, not reduce them.
Rev,
You have gone completely off the deep end now, comparing America's post 9/11 actions with what the Nazis did. Do I really have to explain the difference to you ? Do I really ??? You must be capable of some rational thought.
You ask, "Can all laws simply be suspended in a national security emergency?"
Nobody has ever said all laws can be suspended. That's a false question. But if you want to know if some laws can be temporarily suspended during wartime for the sake of national security, ask Abraham Lincoln or FDR. They both won wars. They both suspended laws. They both are considered among our greatest presidents.
"You have gone completely off the deep end now, comparing America's post 9/11 actions with what the Nazis did. Do I really have to explain the difference to you ? Do I really ??? You must be capable of some rational thought."
From someone who defends, as Nazi sympathizers did, the indefensible.
"If we're talking about waterboarding three high-level Al Qaeda operatives at Gitmo, I have no problem with that."
King has no problem with our federal leaders intentionally violating numerous laws, at their own discretion.
As you may know, my CASE CLOSED blog has turned into a forum for widespread discussion of the actual anthrax case. I have been seeking answers to questions posed to the FBI by Congress. Yesterday, I finally received those answers, which I found to be insulting and demeaning to the Congress and to the American people. The questions, the answers, and my comments are posted on my blog at …
http://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-fbis-answers-to-questions-posed-by-members-of-the-house-judiciary-committee-in-september-2008-as-to-certain-aspects-of-the-fbi’s-investigation-of-the-2001-anthrax-attacks-are-insulting/
LEW WEINSTEIN