Why would major "news" outfits, like ABC, CNN or FOX, invite Rudy Giuliani to come to their Sunday shows, yesterday, and answer questions about the Obama administration's decision to try five 9-11 conspirators in New York City?

What possible information, what opinions, could Giuliani hold in his freaky little head that might justify ABC, CNN and FOX's invite? Rudy holds no office, hasn't been mayor of New York for quite some time, and made a national embarassment out of himself with his "noun, verb and 9-11" presidential primary campaign in 2008….the campaign he strategized so brilliantly by running in only one state, Florida.

Giuliani's appearance as some kind of "expert opinionator" about 9-11, of course, is laughable. Rudy Giuliani, on 9-11, was shrewd enough to get himself in front of the cameras,…but that's the extent of his knowledge or expertise on terrorism.

Rudy's recommendation to George W. Bush of Bernard Kerik to be Homeland Security Director is all one needs to know about Rudy's judgment. Kerik was convicted of a felony just a few days ago and sentenced to prison.

But there he was….Mr. 9-11….on ABC, CNN and FOX yesterday…..the slumped-back freak, in all his freakish glory, criticizing President Obama's decision to hold trials of terrorists in New York City.

"It's an unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists," Giuliani said on CNN's State of the Union. "I don't know why you want to give terrorists advantages. And secondly, it's an unnecessary risk to the city of New York, which already has any number of risks."

The same guy who said that…also said this in 2006 about trying 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussauoi in federal court .

Several news show hosts called Giuliani out on some apparent hypocrisy — in 2006, he praised the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he was "in awe of our system" and that we "are a nation of law."

For federal court trials until he was against them.

But think about what Mr. Noun & Verb & 9-11 said yesterday on CNN. If we bring the five 9-11 conspirators to trial in New York City, we are giving the "terrorists" an "unnecessary advantage." Trying those five in New York City federal court is putting New York under "unnecessary risk."

Bringing international anarchist criminals to justice following the template of American law, is giving "unnecessary advantage" to Islamic radicals. In other words,….according to Giuliani…we must forsake our own laws and history of following those laws, because if we follow American law and order, we will give extremists the "advantage."

WTF?

Suicide bombers carry out violent acts which kill civilians in order to scare the host country's government into CHANGING the way they live and carry out their system of government.

Rudy Giuliani says the U.S. must not rely on the U.S. legal system to try the five conspirators, the same system Rudy praised in the trial of Moussauoi,…..because if we follow our own legal system and precedence…..we'll be giving the extremists, "unnecessary advantage."

Rudy is now too scared of the U.S. justice system to trust it. That's no small detail.

Not only has Giuliani given up on the U.S. justice system's ability to adjudicate crimes and lock away criminals…he's, apparently, given up on New York City's ability to protect it's citizens too. Trying suspects of a horrific crime in one of our cities is now putting that city's residents under "unnecessary risk."

I guess that means that from now on if a significantly horrible enough crime is committed inside the U.S….we can no longer trust our court system to deal with it. Rudy, by making these statements, is announcing his agreement with Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden has said America needs to change it's system of government and that Americans have become "soft." Rudy Giuliani agrees.

Giuliani, as I mentioned, is a freak. The question naturally arises….why would what Rudy has to say be significant to Americans? I can't answer that question. I keep coming up with, "it isn't." CNN, ABC and FOX believe otherwise. The Villagers, don't forget, are very, very Serious.

One last backhand……if we try criminals in federal courts, find them guilty and execute or imprison them…..then, according to Rudy, we're playing Aladdin to those who wage "Islamic war against us"……

"Since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of terrorists?"

You know what I'm thinking?…..I'm thinking that Rudy Giuliani is full of sh*t.

Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb on AG Eric Holder's announcement that five of the 9-11 plotters will be tried in New York federal court…..

Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

..[..]..

And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

House representative Jim Moran (D-Va)….has a different take….

"They (Republicans, neo-cons, wingnuts) see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

"Opportunity to demagogue? Yep…like this….

Of all the mindless memes that non-reality-based adherents blare out like zombie pod people…..this one about "American soil" is the most ignorant. That's saying something….because the extreme right TeaBagger-FOX-Beck-Rush Group LLC….says a whole bunch of ignorant stuff on an hourly basis.

Giuliani is a discredited authoritarian moron, so it's easy to dismiss his grandstanding gibberish. But Rudy represents the FOX-BeckerHead position…so it will be the most prominent, because whatever FOX-Beckerheads spout is to be taken very Seriously by the Village. And, as the 9-12'ers and Rupert Murdoch have made clear, all wingnut-media decisions are for the purpose of "destroying Obama."

Remember, the only Job One there is for Republicans, Teabaggers, Drug Addicts on the Radio and myriad Wingnut Zoo Animals….is to bring about, as South Carolina cracker-senator Jim DeMint said…."Obama's Waterloo."

Now the analysis.

Senator Jim Webb is mistaken when he compares Japanese pilots during WW2 with 9-11 hijackers. Japanese pilots were operating under the authority of the Japanese Emperor. Japanese pilots during WW2 represented a country, a nation of people who declared war against America with the Pearl Harbor attack. WW2 was a war of nations. The militaries of the Axis powers were ordered by their nation's leaders to wage war on Allied nations.

9-11 Islamic hijackers represented who, exactly? A tiny international band of stateless anarchist criminals. No state or country sponsored the 9-11 hijackers. 9-11 hijackers did not act on the orders of a state dictator, politician, leader, or representative. Bin Laden's al-Qaeda carried out acts of violence for THEMSELVES….no one else.

Islamic extremists are seeking to make a symbolic "political statement" with their acts of violence. The entire point of killing others while killing yourself is to shock others into believing they are not safe. Japanese pilots who dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor were not making a "political statement"……they were beginning a monumental war of one nation against another. Japanese pilots were seeking to defeat the U.S. military, and thus America, the nation. Japanese pilots were not just trying to shock U.S citizens…..there was nothing symbolic about Pearl Harbor.

The second bit of "demagogic" nonsense-hype by American wingnuts only seeking Obama's demise by foolishly arguing we can't try 9-11 masterminds on "American soil"….is the, "they're too dangerous" to be housed in New York prisons…nonsense. There's no question the 9-11 plot was sinister and evil, but the five radical Islamic masterminds to be tried in New York federal court ain't squat compared to the most vicious, brutal, bloodthirsty deviants we currently have safely locked away in federal prisons, including, by the way, over 100 Islamic "terrorists."

To take the position that these five are too dangerous to bring onto "American soil" is, at best, a wingnut admission that America is weak, vulnerable, unsure of it's power and that the Constitution and set of laws which guide us are, somehow, deficient.

The final point I want to make is over the stupid claim that if we try 9-11 conspirators in New York…then New York will automatically become the focus of new terrorist attacks. Besides being another admission that America is just too weak or vulnerable to protect itself….this ignorant meme, meant only to diminish Obama's leadership, ignores the fact that America currently occupies two Muslim countries with some 200,000 U.S. soldiers. Daily, we are killing Afghani citizens. Also ignored is the fact that the American military has killed, at the very minimum, some 128,000 Iraqi citizens in our war of imperialistic aggression. 4 million Iraqis were displaced.

What more incentive would a Muslim crazy need to "focus" their extremist bile on the U.S.?

Here are the facts. George W. Bush, though he did not act on it, stated clearly that he would like to see Guantanomo closed. But Bush was a Republican president with very low approval ratings. In comes a popular Democratic President Obama who agrees with Bush's view of closing Guantanomo. If Obama succeeds in closing Guantanomo…..well, you know the wingnut drill….then America "fails."

The ignorant and disingenuous blatherings about not trying 9-11 conspirators on "American soil" is for the sole purpose of seeing Obama "fail."

Not that complicated.

Glenn Greenwald…

"One of the most astounding feats in propaganda is how we've managed to take people who live in a country which we invade, bomb and occupy — and who fight against us because we're doing that — and call them "Terrorists," thereby "justifying" continuing to bomb and occupy their country further."

That sentence may not sound all that profound at first reading, but it is.

When the U.S. arbitrarily invaded Iraq, al-Qaeda "terrorists" were not there. Some came later to Iraq, especially following the release of the Abu Ghraib picnic photos. Neo-conservative propagandists, cheerled by Fox and Fiends, did their best to brainwash Americans into believing that shadowy Sunni figures or Shi-ite rebels (al-Sadr) or (Saddam's former) Baath Party remnants were each interchangeable surrogates for al-Qaeda. Even though Iraq had no al-Qaeda presence, no "terrorists", U.S. media quickly transplanted Sunni, Shi-ite, and/or Baath members into the role of the "terrorists."

America had attacked a sovereign nation where "terrorists" were not harbored, where al-Qaeda had no significant, if any, presence,….and within short-order of occupying a country that posed no threat to America, we were told that we were fighting the "terrorists" inside Iraq. Amazingly, Iraq had become the "central front of the war on terror." The lines were purposely blurred in explanation of who those "terrorists" were. Were they Sunni, were some Shi-ite, were they the remnants of Saddam's old political party? No one was sure…..and that, of course, was the point.

The same is true in Afghanistan, and has been for…..what is it now?…..over EIGHT years. al-Qaeda is a stateless, borderless group….so, in order to justify bringing the enormous U.S. military machine to the region in preparation for the already-determined plan to attack and occupy Iraq…..we needed a nation state as an enemy. The Taliban-ruled Afghanistan fit the bill. Those camel-riding Taliban were "harboring" those al-Qaeda, by god….quickly a whole new group of "terrorists" were created.

As Greenwald said, America attacks a country, occupies that country with it's military….an action that creates a resistance from natives of that country, whom we then quickly declare the "enemy" or the new "terrorists", which, completing the circle, justifies us continuing with our occupation.

The Reverend has often stated without apology that there is no "war on terror" and never has been. The U.S. "enemy" was/is al-Qaeda. After 9-11, the "war" America declared under Commander Guy, more appropriately, should have been called a "war on al-Qaeda"….but see?, that's too narrow, too specific. This American musical chairs style, changing-enemies game in Iraq and Afghanistan is often called a part of a non-existent "war on terror", but in all honesty, all it is, is an ongoing faux-justification to defend U.S. neo-conservative ideological and imperialistic goals for the region.
……….
Greenwald also writes about "why they hate us." The hopelessly incompetent Decider insisted that "they" hated us "because of our freedoms", a childish non-sequiter at best. A neo-conservative propaganda tool, at worst.

Overnight, a Fox and Fiends-led cottage industry developed complete with nonsensical "Islamofascist" name-calling and ridiculous notions of Islam's "real" goal to overthrow the "free" world. Americans were repeatedly told that Islamic radicals killed themselves in order to kill Americans because, somehow, America's freedom just drove them insane with rage. The Villagers all nodded, knowingly, in agreement.

Here's why "they" hate us…..

I also saw how some of the consequences of Washington’s antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban. Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.

Here's why "they" hate us….

In 1996, Israeli jets bombed a UN building where civilians had taken refuge at Cana/ Qana in south Lebanon, killing 102 persons;…..

"On April 11, 1996, when Atta was twenty-seven years old, he signed a standardized will he got from the al-Quds mosque.l It was the day Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation grapes of Wrath. According to one of his friends, Atta was enraged,and by filling out his last testamentd during the attack he was offering his life in response."

A little over 5 years later, Atta led a group of hijackers who crashed planes into American buildings, killing 3000.

And here's why "they" will continue to hate us…

The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did," the official said.

A British High Court has just ruled that those 25 lines describing what CIA officials told British officials that they had done to an innocent Muslim detainee, Binyam Mohamed,…must be released to the world. Both George W. Bush and, now, Barack Obama, have tried, (up until now successfully) to keep examples of U.S. depravity and torture, like this one, secret.

But many middle eastern Muslims already know about U.S. torture and depravity. Many middle eastern Muslims know that we attack and occupy their countries with our military, then declare any subsequent native resistance, "enemies" and "terrorists." Many middle eastern countries already know that we will block any investigations into war crimes perpetrated against Gazans by Israelis…..or perpetrated by U.S. officials against Muslim detainees.

"They" already know all of this.

"They" are, just now, learning about this.

And that's why "they" hate us….and unless we change policy course….that's why "they" will continue to hate us.

Updated below

Humans will lie about almost anything…..check that….Humans will lie about anything. I'm not sure whether the human habit of lying can be attributed to evolution or not. Perhaps we have been programmed over 15,000 years or so to deceive other humans for self-preservation purposes.

Whatever the reason…..dishonesty, lying, deception….have always been human traits.

In the 90's, the last time we had a Democratic president, rich conservatives took it upon themselves to orchestrate a mass media lying and smearing campaign against Bill Clinton. Clinton, according to those widely circulated lies, was a drug runner, a murderer, a real estate scammer and a serial rapist. None of those lies were true but they were continually repeated by the liars and then, by those who believed, or wanted to believe the lies.

One year after Justice Scalia appointed George W. Bush president, the lies and deceptions by Dick Cheney and his band of PNAC warmongering crusaders led to the senseless murders of 4400 U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Corporate media, with very few exceptions, helped Cheney spread those lies. The lies were spread from the "liberal" NY Times' Judith Miller directly to the late Tim Russert's Meet the Press on "liberal" NBC……the network that Mary Matalin, Cheney's political advisor, said was the best for getting Cheney's "message" out.

Cheney's lies and deceptions worked. Iraq posed no threat to the U.S., wasn't involved with 9-11, and had no ties to Islamic extremists. Iraq had been decimated from a decade of U.S flyover bombings and painful sanctions. Yet, the corporate media's wholesale spreading of Cheney's lies coupled with America's still fresh emotions of vengeance from 9-11, led this country into what is still considered a disaster today inside Iraq.

Believing in lies often leads to dire consequences. Such is Iraq.

Now with Cheney gone, except for appearances on corporate-whore teevee, incoherent sore-loser Tea Partiers, like the arrival of the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts, have had the deceptive-working power of Dick Cheney wash over them like flames of fire. Tea Partiers, or 9-12'ers if you prefer, though not as polished a group as their Dark Master, have been as successful as The Dick was in deceiving the overall public.

I wonder how many needless deaths will happen this time.

The Twelvers lie about virtually everything. They lie about an already partially socialized America becoming "socialist." They lie about Obama's desire to kill the elderly. They lie about Democratic health care legislation covering undocumenteds. They lie about Obamacare mandating tax dollars to be used for abortion. They lie about Obama's citizenship. They deceptively compare Obama with Hitler, Castro, Mao, and Stalin. They falsely assert that they "want their country back", when their country hasn't gone anywhere.

They even lie about how many Twelvers showed up in D.C. last Saturday.

Tea Partiers, now imbued with the Evil Lying Spirit of Richard Cheney, carry on their Dark Father's tradition of lying in order to get what they want. Cheney wanted to attack and occupy Iraq. Twelvers want health care reform killed and the presidency of Barack Obama, like Clinton in the 90's, marginalized.

In both cases, corporate-whore main media was johnny-on-the-spot in helping to spread the lies. In 2002, in excess of 100,000 anti-Iraq war protestors gathered in D.C. The Washington Post, you know, that "liberal" rag, covered that rather large protest this way….

The Washington Post put the story not on the front page, but in the Metro section with, as the paper's ombudsman later lamented, "a couple of ho-hum photographs that captured the protest's fringe elements."

The Post, representing the lies and deceptions of Dick Cheney over Iraq in 2002, couldn't possibly take 100,000+ protesters seriously…..their paper repeatedly had argued for attacking a country which did not threaten America.

However, if the protest is smaller and based on incoherent deceptions and lies, like the TeaBaggers in D.C. this past weekend…..then the "liberal" Washington Post strategically places those lies and deceptions on their front page….with pictures….

Tens of thousands of conservative protesters, many complaining that the nation is racing toward socialism, massed outside the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, angrily denouncing President Obama's health-care plan and other initiatives as threats to the Constitution.

100,000+ protesting the lies of Dick Cheney which resulted in 4400 U.S. soldier caskets and no definable benefit to America…..Metro section coverage. 60,000 protesters lying about any and everything Obama…..front page news.

I no longer believe that America is in a "battle for it's soul." I think that battle is over and the forces of light and truth have lost. The liars and deceivers have won out. Cheney lied and he got what he wanted….a U.S. quagmire in Iraq with thousands of dead Americans. The Twelvers lie and deceive and the whore media, just like with Iraq, assist them in getting what they want…..a watered down, feckless, piece of drug and insurance industry-friendly legislation which will only make our problem with high costs and availability even worse.

Update: Here is the picture used by my blog friend King in his post yesterday….

The picture is from the 1997 Promise Keepers rally…..not from last Saturday's TeaBagger gathering.

Humans will lie and deceive about anything.

The Obama speech from Cairo, Egypt…

The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.

Addressing seemingly intractable problems requires honesty. Facts and truth must not be avoided for the sake of national pride or revisionistic history. The West, as well as Islam, cannot move forward peacefully without recognition of historic truth. Obama boldly addressed historic truth. Finding common ground requires honesty.

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.

Stereotyping of either side is dishonest…

I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known.

The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores……..So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America.

Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.

There is no room in Obama's thinking for blind American exceptionalistic dogma. Just as al-Qaeda's extremist doctrines, which elevate Islam to uniquely superior world status, is incongruous with peaceful coexistence……so too, American exceptionalistic doctrines.

Obama addresses 9-11…

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.

We did not go by choice (to Afghanistan), we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day…..These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there.

Driving a wedge between Islam and the radical version of Islam represented by Bin Laden….

They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.

President Obama struck at the heart of the Islamic extremist problem. Bim Laden's theology is not the theology of Islam, it is a perversion, an aberration. Using the essence of the Koran as evidence, Obama stripped away the faux-justifications relied upon by Bin Laden to justify his barbaric violence.

Iraq….

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world……America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own.

Some American neo-conservatives still insist that Iraq was not a war of choice, but instead, a war of necessity. Obama, rightfully, dismissed this neo-conservative dishonesty out of hand, while assuring Iraqis and Muslims that goals of American imperialism in Iraq are out of the question.

American torture….

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Even though I disagree with the reasons Obama gave for the previous administration's torture regime ("fear and anger")….especially in light of the evidence that torture was conducted in order to extract false confessions later to be used to lead America into a "war of choice",……Obama's clear denunciation of Gitmo and torture drew applause from his Muslim audience, and rightfully so.

I will continue tomorrow with Part 2.

Without any qualification….President Obama's Cairo speech should make all Americans proud. Obama was brilliant.

Updated below

From NBC's "Press the Meat", aka, "Meet the Press", this past Sunday…

The Republican Party's "idea man", Mr. Newton Gingrich…..

"Let me just say, I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers, where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia, was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the two embassy bombings in east Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of the Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate. I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you weren't worried about the second-wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that, that you are out of touch with reality."

Seems relatively clear what the GOP's idea man was trying to communicate, right? Be scared. I don't think I've heard such clarity before from the Party of Fear. Not a lot of nuance in what Gingrich said……be afraid, stay afraid, and the appropriate response to a tiny band of stateless, loosely connected Islamic extremists….is fear.

Those who are not afraid, those who refuse to give in to fear, those who do not tremble and quake constantly in a state of horrified fear of a handful of international anarchists, are….."out of touch with reality."

This from the GOP's idea man. Time to party, in fear naturally, like it's 9-11 everyday. Everything old is still old, but new again for the Party of No-to-Everything-but-Fear. No, the GOP didn't want to help stimulate a failing economy, didn't want to pass a federal budget, don't want to approve any straight talking Obama nominees, don't want Minnesota's voters to have a say in their own state elections, but what this same GOP is sure that they want…..is for Americans to be afraid.

The Party of Fear has not always been afraid. The Party of Fear's representatives haven't always been heard on "Press the Meat" promoting fear as the "appropriate response" to, like, everything. In fact, when then Counterterrorism Chief, Richard Clarke, was trying to persuade the newly inaugurated Bush administration that they should be, you now, afraid of the Bin Laden network, nary a Party of Fear flinch was detected. When Clarke's "hair was on fire" during early/middle 2001 in response to tremendous chatter of an impending Al-Qaida strike….the Party of Fear, the President and Vice-President of Fear, were calm and unconcerned.

Even though Clarke had pestered Condi repeatedly for an interview/briefing with Bush to map out a strategy against Bin Laden's group, the first such meeting wasn't held until the first week of September, 2001. There certainly was no urgent fear over Clarke's concerns. It took 9 months for Clarke to be heard by the President. The "appropriate response" during that time was anything but fearful.

George and Condi's response to any potential U.S. retaliation for the Cole bombing? "We don't want to just be swatting flies." No fear expressed in that statement. The "appropriate response" then was indifference, apathy….but not fear.

When Bush was repeatedly briefed in 2001 on the threat from Al-Qaida and Bin Laden's desire to strike inside the U.S……there was no fear, no "appropriate response" of fear. Instead, there was only a cynical, craven response to the warnings…."Ok, you've covered your ass", Bush told his CIA briefer, August, 2001.

So, fear, being afraid all the time about scary, scary Islamic extremists, hasn't always been the Republican Party's message to Americans. Only now, in the midst of numerous new and expanding revelations about Bush administration war crimes do we hear that the "appropriate response" should be, once again, fear of all moving things.

Be afraid of our "Homeland" SuperMax prisons. Although no one has ever escaped from one, and we currently hold more dangerous killers within those walls than Islamic extremists, although we currently hold a couple hundred "terrorists" in U.S. prisons also…..the "appropriate response" to bringing Gitmo detainees into those ironclad facilities? Be scared sh*tless.

Be afraid if we stop torturing captives. That is the "appropriate response" by the GOP to ending the Bush/Cheney torture regime. Never mind that torturing Islamic detainees makes other Islamics want to kill us even more….and, therefore, makes us less safe. We're told by The GOP Idea Man that ending the torture of detainees makes us less safe, and since Obama put an end to it, the only "appropriate response" is to be extremely afraid.

The Idea Man of the Republican Party, Newton Gingrich…..the silent-until-out-of-office ex-VP, Richard Cheney…..and a gaggle of goofy GOP fear goons, none of whom were the least bit afraid of Bin Laden and Al-Qaida before 9-11 are now seen entering D.C buildings with boxes of Depends.

What these "appropriate" responders are really afraid of?

Getting outed, indicted and punished for their crimes.

Update: I can barely believe it….the Divine General Petreaus isn't afraid, like Newt and Dick and 90 sissy seantors are…..how could the Divine General refuse to endorse the only "appropriate response" to closing Gitmo, i.e., be afraid? How can the Divine General be so willing to endanger Americans like that? Think he hates America?

Here's the link.

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….

The script writers for the teevee program "24" should be hired by our defense department as full time military planners. Eliminate the middle men. That way our great protector-leaders can skip over all the liberal whining horsesh*t over torture and get down to protecting us like real men should. Why bother with pansy-assed anti-torture appeasers and pacifists who insist on the rule of law. The rule of law is so pre-9-11. F*ck the rule of law. Are we going to rely on a goddamn piece of paper to protect us? Huh? Are we? What are we going to do? Hide behind it? Huh, you liberal sissies?

I, for one, can hardly wait for the gloves to come off permanently. I oftentimes feel like peeing in my pants, I get so scared about a boogyman terrorist hiding in my trashcan, and when I roll it back into the garage he's going to jump out screaming some stupid sh*t about Allah and blow my house up. So, I want those gloves to come off, and I want them to stay off. No more Mr. Niceguy like we've heard about from down in the Guantanomo-Carlton.

Bush and Cheney started taking the gloves off but, obviously, they didn't go far enough….you know, because I still feel like peeing in my pants occasionally. I don't want the "24" script writers hired by the defense department to stop with the violence, gore and waterboarding scenarios until I don't have that scared-e-cat urge anymore. I really, really need to feel safe…..and I, for one, couldn't possibly feel safe if sissy suggestions from some limp-dicked appeaser Democrats and a teleprompter reading imposter of a president keep telling me torture is off the table. Oops,…see,….just typing those words caused leakage.

What America needs right now is more leaders who are willing to order the killing, the mutilation, and the eating of the flesh of our detainees, if need be, to put the fear of the only real god, the American god, Yahweh, into Muslim hearts everywhere. Muslims, (W., Don, and The Dick will tell you), can only be deterred by savagery. It's all they understand. They're not like us. So, if Muslims worldwide witness videos of our patriotic interrogators sitting around campfires at Camp X-Ray roasting a few Muslim loins…..you can be sure that those suicide bombing bastards will think twice. I think that's what it's going to take for me to maintain dry pants.

The Geneva Convention doesn't call cannibalism torture and who cares if it did. Just more goddamn pieces of paper, anyway. Americans need to hear more from the nation's authentic manly-leaders….Richard Cheney and Rush Limbaugh….leaders who aren't afraid, in this post 9-11 world where everything has changed, to wipe their asses with any legal or official document prohibiting savage American acts. Real leader-men. Lately, I've been encouraged by seeing and hearing nightly from those two great fearless patriots. And when they're not on my teevee, thankfully for my bladder, there are stand-ins…..like these guys….

Pressed for time? Start at the 2:00 mark…

According to Warrior Harold Ford, and he's a Democrat, Americans are fully on board the waterboard, which means, that we must be getting stronger as a nation. A nation who isn't shy about using savagery is a nation ready to lead in a post 9-11 world. A nation willing to line their birdcages with foolish paper laws and principles is a nation that has learned some hard lessons about the limititations built into the foolish notion of a rule of law.

Great Warrior Leaders like Harold Ford and the Post's Chris Cilizza give my bladder hope. I only long for the day when all former sissy-ass media and sympathetic-to-prisoners politicians can hold their heads high while defiantly munching on Muslim-prisoner ribs during prime time broadcasts. Instead of constantly changing my trousers out of fear there's an Al-Bomber in my trashcan, I'll stay dry and no longer be afraid.

Now that's change my bladder can believe in.

This is worth a read as well.

We now know that the Bush/Cheney administration ordered the torturing of detainees being held in U.S. secret prisons, in direct and repeated violation of national and international law. That is no longer in dispute. We also know now that the Bush administration ordered torture to be done BEFORE any Justice Department "legal" memos defending those acts of torture had been written.

But why did the Bushies order torture? What was their motivation for violating the Constitution and international treaties in the first place?

We have been told repeatedly over the last week, by those who support torture as long as it's the U.S doing it, that the Bushies ordered torture for the sole purpose of saving American lives. In other words, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, et.al., ordered the torture of detainees thinking that vital information could be gleaned from the torturee that would save our nation from another attack.

The "why" part of America's institutionalizing of torture has always been answered with, 'we tortured to protect the country from further attack.'

That answer cannot be a truthful one.

First, consider this….

"The Pentagon's general counsel's office contacted the military agency that runs the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape programs — schools where U.S. personnel and contractors are taught how to resist abuses that prisoners of war have been through before — in December 2001 to find out how the SERE training could help interrogators break al-Qaida suspects."

Long before any "legal" memos were introduced in defense of the indefensible…..8-9 months before….the Bushies were planning to torture. Rumsfeld's lawyer at Defense consulted SERE to see how they could go about it.

At that early December, 2001 inquiry came this response from military officials….

"Military officials at the time told top Pentagon aides that the SERE techniques produced "less reliable" information."

In July of 2002, one month BEFORE Bybee, Bradbury and Yoo unfurled their "legal" defense for the use of torture, SERE issued a document of warning about using torture…..

Saturday's Washington Post…

The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

Why, indeed, would a presidential administration, intent on saving us from further attack, begin torturing detainees thinking they would gather valuable national defense information, when they were warned by the professionals that the very torture tactics they wanted to use would produce, "unreliable information"?

Why would they do that?

I believe this is the answer…..

"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Army psychiatrist Maj. Paul Burney is quoted in the Senate report as saying about Guantánamo. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link … there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Some perspective….

Five hours after the Twin Towers were hit, Donald Rumsfeld let us in on what the White House plans were…..

CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

Rumsfeld's desire to attack Iraq….

Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism coordinator at the time, has revealed details of a meeting the day after the attacks during which officials considered the US response. Already, he said, they were certain al-Qa'ida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Mr Clarke said. "We all said, 'No, no, al-Qa'ida is in Afghanistan.'"

But Mr Clarke……said Mr Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

…..he (Clarke) believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of a long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qa'ida attacks in the US, he says. "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qa'ida."

W's desire to attack Iraq….

Clarke…"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. … Do it again.'

Here's the clincher….

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi has been identified as the primary source of faulty prewar intelligence regarding chemical weapons training between Iraq and al Qaeda that was used by the Bush Administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. Link

Why was the intelligence from al-Libi "faulty"…

January, 2001….

Al-Libi, an al-Qaeda operative, was interrogated by both the United States and Egypt, and—as was publicly reported—tortured by Egyptian authorities. During these sessions, he claimed that Iraq had trained members of al-Qaeda to use chemical and biological weapons.

….in January 2004, al-Libi recanted his confession. He said that he had invented the information because he was afraid of being further abused by his interrogators. The CIA withdrew the intelligence.

The goal of the Bush administration in ordering torture was to produce "unreliable information" connecting Iraq to al-Qaeda. Al-Libi, while being tortured, gave the phony information the Bushies were after from the start.

The "why" concerning the ordering of torture was never about "saving American lives"…it was always about producing a fig leaf excuse for attacking and occupying Iraq.

Invading Iraq was the Bush administration's policy from the very beginning….

"..the top item on the agenda of the National Security Council’s first meeting after Bush entered the Oval Office was Iraq. That was January 30, 2001, more than seven months before the 9/11 attacks. The next National Security Council (NSC) meeting on February 1st was devoted exclusively to Iraq."

Today we know that this "top item" was so important to the Bushies that they set up an American torture regime immediately after 9-11 to extract phony connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Those phony connections were then used in a fearmongering campaign to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Wickedness in high places.

I'm sick to death of reading mindlessly written bullsh*t like this from todays' NY Times….

This extraordinary consensus (to torture) was possible,… largely because no one involved — not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W. Bush, not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate.

That is the biggest turd I've ever seen in the Times.

Consider: No one amongst the Bushies knew the origins in history of such torture techniques….and that made torture, "possible." No one in the bunch recognized that waterboarding Sheik Mohammed 183 times could be evil and wrong because they all slept during history classes in college.

Bullsh*t.

The top officials he (Tenet, CIA) briefed did not learn that waterboarding had been prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II and was a well-documented favorite of despotic governments since the Spanish Inquisition;……Others say that if they had known the full history of the interrogation methods or been able to anticipate how the issue would explode, they would have advised against using them.

The Times writers are tugging my root here. I'm supposed to believe that the Bushies lived in a vacuum, a vacuum about ethics, morality and….history. And THAT vaccuum is some kind of explanation or, worse, a justification, for why America secretly practiced savage and barbaric torture during Bush's regime. A simple brushup on the history of barbaric behavior was what was lacking. Horsepucky.

An aside: Last night on Rachel Maddow, lo and behold, Condi Rice's protector, Philip Zelikow, came out of his undisclosed location to help the now potentially endangered legal prospects of Ms. Rice. As I predicted months ago, the last administration's crimes are now leaking out from everywhere. And it's every ex-Bushie for himself. That's why Zelikow went on the teevee last night.

And that's why the NY Times, today, is writing bullsh*t….

After years of recriminations about torture and American values, Bush administration officials say it is easy to second-guess the decisions of 2002, when they feared that a new attack from Al Qaeda could come any moment.

I'm sick of hearing how the Bushies were so goddamn worried about ANOTHER attack…..when they were the ones who didn't stop, you know, the 9-11 attack. There were piles of material available pointing a curious and defense-minded Bush administration to the 9-11 caper before it happened. Yet, Bush's response in August, 2001 to the CIA briefer attempting to point him in that direction, was, "okay, you've covered your ass."

When the Villagers at the NY Times seek to defend the indefensible, they go all in….

according to many Bush administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and some intelligence officers who are critics of the coercive methods, the C.I.A. program would also produce an invaluable trove of information on Al Qaeda, including leads on the whereabouts of important operatives and on terror schemes discussed by Al Qaeda. Whether the same information could have been acquired using the traditional, noncoercive methods that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the military have long used is impossible to say, and former Bush administration officials say they did not have the luxury of time to develop a more patient approach, given that they had intelligence warnings of further attacks.

Bush, The Dick, Condi and the rest, were warned repeatedly by Richard Clarke in early 2001 about the imminent danger of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. According to Clarke's warnings, warnings about "further attacks", there wasn't any "luxury of time" before 9-11…..yet the Bushies acted like they had all the time in the world. Didn't they? No principle's meetings on the threat of torture were held until just before 9-11. Clarke, unlike during the Clinton administration, was purposely kept out of the Bush Cabinet meetings. Bush, in 2001, apparently, had plenty of "luxury of time."

But AFTER we were hit….then, there was no "luxury of time" because of "intelligence warnings" about "further attacks."

This is all total bullsh*t.

With the torture memos being released, the evil of the Bush regime is now staring us all in the face. That evil must be dealt with now. That's why we're seeing this flurry of bullsh*t now. That's why The Dick runs to Fox News, that's why after never hearing, or seeing, Philip Zelikow ever asked questions from a liberal, he took questions from Rachel last night…..and that's why the New York Times published a bunch of Bush ass covering bullsh*t in their "liberal" paper today.

Update: Read a much more objective account in today's Washington Post.

Update #2: McClatchy is reporting that the pressure to use torture coming from Bush's White House was "in part to find evidence of cooperation between al-Qaeda and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime…"

"While we were there (at Gitmo) a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq," Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. "The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

EVERYTHING Bush and The Dick decided was about going to Iraq.