Yesterday, the House voted 258-163 to approve a non-binding recommendation prohibiting the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. for trial or imprisonment. 88 Democrats voted with the majority.

Here's the typical defense for continuing, indefinitely, American offshore gulags…..

"There is no reason these terrorists, who pose a serious and documented threat to our nation, cannot be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "I certainly think that is where the American people stand on this issue —they don't want these terrorists in their hometowns."

Because these detainees have not had their day in court to hear charges against them and to defend themselves against those charges…there is no substantiation for the claim that they are all "terrorists." None. If it has not been proven (and it hasn't) that all of these detainees are "terrorists", then it is also not clear that they "pose a serious and documented threat to our nation."

Yes, SOME of the detainees being held in America's first torture gulag are guilty of planning or perpetrating crimes against the U.S. Khalid Sheik Mohammed proudly spouted off about being the mastermind of 9-11, for example. But with the other 240-some detainees…..guilt is not so clearcut. If the detainees have not been proven by the rule of law to be "terrorists" yet….then it follows that it also hasn't been proven that these detainees "pose a serious and documented threat to our nation."

258 House members, however, knowing full well that the guilt of these detainees has still not been determined, are willing to go on record in support of this unsupportable statement…."they (American people) don't want these terrorists in their hometowns."

The presumption by, in this case, a Kentucky Republican demagogueing dimwit, is that if detainees are taken from Guantanamo and brought to the U.S….they will simply be dropped off in the center of every major U.S. city to do as they will. That concept, naturally, is ridiculous…..but we live in very ridiculous times.

I've said it many times before…..American prisons, on American soil, CURRENTLY hold numerous convicted terrorists. Is there a threat to "hometowns" everywhere because convicted terrorists are being held, right now, in prisons located on American soil? Will it become necessary for America to send ALL violent, or potentially violent offenders to offshore secret prisons so those same prisoners won't threaten the stability of "hometowns?"

How ridiculous would that be? Or would it be ridiculous?

It's crystal clear what Republicans in the House are doing. Proven to not have any interest or competency in the job of governing when they were in the majority, the only interest GOP'ers have now is to destroy the current Democratic majority and be reinstalled (god forbid) as D.C's power group. Obama promised to close Gitmo in a year, and by god, Republicans will do everything to make sure Obama, as the RNC Chief Rush said, "fails."

It has also become clear what the spineless Democrats are doing….at least 88 of them in this case. Many Democrats, as in the ACORN defunding embarassment, are p*ssies (in the "weakling" sense of the word). Even though the "keep prisoners off U.S. soil" resolution is knee-jerk, guilty-before-proving-your-innocence, nonsense…..some Democrats are timidly fearful that mean, mean Republicans will accuse them of not being manly enough to defend their constituents should they vote to close down America's first Soviet-style gulag.

As much as I detest the current Republican nuts in Congress, I have only contempt for Democrats who instantly cave in to cartoon characterizations by dishonest GOP brokers.

The House "Operation Scaredy-Cat" resolution is even worse than what I've already described….

The vote also put House members on record as backing the Obama administration's refusal to release new photos showing U.S. personnel abusing detainees held overseas.

President Barack Obama has already said he would use every available means to block release of additional detainee abuse photos because they could whip up anti-American sentiment overseas and endanger U.S. troops. His powers include issuing an order to classify the photos, thus blocking their release.

This Obama-led nonsense is just as indefensible and stupid as the "we can't close Gitmo because we'll all die" p*ssy chorus. Does anyone believe that Muslims worldwide don't already know that the U.S. has violently and inexcusably tortured detainees? Anyone?

To comprehend how absolutely off-the-wall crazy Obama's, and now the House's, releasing "photos could whip-up anti-American sentiment overseas" statement is…..ask yourself this question: Isn't it true that for weeks, if not months now, every media outlet in the U.S., and virtually every federal government representative, have been talking openly about increasing U.S. troop numbers inside Afghanistan? Isn't that true?

Does anyone who believes that the release of torture photos (according to U.S. law) "could whip-up anti-American sentiment"…..not believe that open discussion of sending thousands more troops into Afghanistan might also "whip-up" the same "sentiment?" Anyone?

Obama refuses to follow the rule of law on the photos issue, just as George W. Bush did before him. Obama has decided to unlawfully deny the release of the photos to further protect George and Dick from any messy investigations or (gasp) prosecutions. You see, that would be looking "backwards."

In reality, Obama, by violating Freedom of Information laws and using idefensibly ignorant excuses to do so, is not only concealing damning evidence, but has also now become complicit in the war crimes of the Bush Gang. Republicans and p*ssy Democrats, on the other hand, have incestuously joined together in a resolution of raving imbecility….defending the permanency of Soviet-style gulags while jettisoning the rule of law altogether.

What's particularly galling about all this?…..These are the same folks who repeatedly spout off about how "exceptional" the United States is.

My blog buddy King last week….

What our media hasn't bothered to tell you is that the early interrogation and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT's) used against terrorist monsters like al-Nashiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Abu Zubaydah worked, just like former VP Dick Cheney said they did. Cheney was ridiculed endlessly for saying that, but the CIA IG report leaves no doubt.

Defenders of America's use of cruel and illegal torture tactics cling to the thread of their own devisings that "torture worked". Led by The Dick, many conservatives have desperately sought justifications for the obvious illegalities of torture. It could be that conservative watchers of "24" have been convinced by Kiefer that torture is good and just…or it could be that conservatives don't want to admit that their Super-Patriotic Heroes committed war crimes, because then, THEY, would be shown to be mistaken.

Whatever the motivation might be, these torture defenders are anxious, even frenzied at times, to find something, anything, to defend their indefensible gibberish……they'll grasp for virtually anything that even remotely, on first glance, can be construed to support their position.

That's what King from All Da King's Men does in the above block quote. Look at his words. Torture, or the name given to torture by the easily-queasied, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", according to King's reading of the recent CIA report on interrogations, "worked." Here's King in his own words….

The EIT's worked, whether we like them or not.

It's odd that King is so cock-sure that the CIA's interrogation report leaves "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save American lives. Why? Because even Fran Townsend, George W. Bush's Terrorism Advisor said of the CIA's report….."the report doesn't say that."

The truth in 32 seconds….

Transcript of Fran Townsend's comment…

It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.

How it is that King sees words in the CIA report leaving "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save U.S lives….when the Bushie insider Townsend doesn't……will have to be taken up with King.

I realize that many conservative supporters of torture could give a sh*t whether torture "worked" or whether the CIA report leaves "no doubt" about the wonder-working salvation power of acting like savages……it just doesn't matter, according to some conservatives. Their defense of institutionalized American savagery is simply….'if America is doing it, it is the right, just, necessary and proper thing to do, because America, of all world countries, is singularly exceptional.'

So, there's that.

However, in King's case, I'm beginning to think a reading and comprehension dysfunction is at work. I can't be 100% sure, you understand…but it kinda, sorta, looks that way…..

Now, don't forget…..King said of the CIA report that there is "no doubt" that torture "worked."

From King's Fox News link included in All Da King's Men's August 25th posting….

It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.

With respect to A-Nashiri, [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant….Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information.

King has "no doubt" that the CIA report proves that torture "worked." The report from which King quoted, however, actually says, "…it's not possible to say definitively…", and, "….it is difficult to identify exactly…."

So…is it a reading and comprehension problem? Is it a wishful thinking problem? What is it that motivates some conservatives and libertarians to not be able to read and comprehend relatively clear language?

This CIA report reading and comprehension discussion can serve as a case study for the larger information wars that have blanketed America for a number of years.

It also helps in understanding how it was that America could so easily be talked into attacking Iraq, a non-threatening country that had done absolutely nothing to warrant being attacked and occupied by U.S forces for going on 7 years now.

It's all about deception……self-imposed because of comprehension in reading problems and wishful thinking, partisan blindness…..or gullibility. I'll leave it to others to determine which form of deception applies here.

Postscript: I just remembered another oddity. Ms. Condi Rice told the 9-11 Commission that Junior Leader didn't want to "swat at flies" in the months leading up to 9-11. Now we know why. The deviants of the Bush administration preferred catching anything that could be characterized as a "fly", and as many youthful deviants would prefer, torturing those flies by tearing wings and legs off one at a time. So there's that.

And there's also this….

Cheney thinks it was a sterling success when it came to national security and counter-terrorism. Perhaps there's something to this. After all, except for the catastrophic events of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks against Americans, and terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, and the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the Bush/Cheney record on counter-terrorism was awesome.

As the Obama administration continues to do everything it can to cover-up for Bush/Cheney-era crimes against the American people, we now learn that Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, has appointed Republican, John Durham, as a "special prosecutor" to investigate "alleged detainee mistreatment"….

Holder has named longtime prosecutor John H. Durham, who has parachuted into crisis situations for both political parties over three decades, to open an early review of nearly a dozen cases of alleged detainee mistreatment at the hands of CIA interrogators and contractors.

Durham has already been "investigating" the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes…..

The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes of waterboarding involving high-value al-Qaeda suspects. That investigation is in its 19th month, though lawyers following the case have cast doubt on whether criminal charges will be filed.

The videotapes investigation, reluctantly begun under the Bush administration, is the key to understanding Holder's goals in appointing Durham to investigate detainee abuse. No indictment recommendations will ever be made in the already 19-month-old videotapes investigation, but that long investigation gives the perception that federal leaders are serious about the rule of law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider…

The White House reiterated in a statement that Obama doesn't believe in prosecuting CIA personnel who used "enhanced" techniques "in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance" that was provided by Bush administration officials.

All a thinking person has to ask themselves is this: Does the executive branch have the power, the legal right under the Constitution, to order actions to be carried out which specifically violate American law and international treaties and conventions? And does the executive branch have the legal right under the Constitution to order new laws to be written by obedient lawyers, ala John Yoo, the architect of the "legalization" of American propagated torture?

Bush and Cheney have already given their answers…..now "looking forward, not backward" Obama is giving his. Neither have anything to do with fidelity to law or the Constitution…..but both answers have to do with perception of fidelity to law and the Constitution. Because as Karl Rove and the Townhall Buster Uppers have already proven…..perception is all that matters.

Holder, (if you can even fathom this), isn't setting up an "investigation" to determine if people ordered the open violation of existing law or treaties. He's setting up an "investigation" to determine if people exceeded the "new laws" written by John Yoo and Jay Bybee.

It would be similar to only investigating whether a getaway man in a bank robbery had exceeded the orders he was given by the architect of the bank robbery.

But that's where we're at in America today. And so, just as with Abu Ghraib, perhaps a low level, no-name, CIA employee or private contractor will be reprimanded after John Durham concludes his report in 4 or 5 years….perhaps not.

All that really matters is that Obama, like Bush before him, creates a perception of taking egregious violations of law seriously. He really doesn't.

Others working for Obama don't take violations of the law seriously, either. Consider Obama's CIA chief, Leon Panetta…..

In a message to CIA employees, agency director Leon Panetta declined to enter the debate over whether waterboarding and other "enhanced" questioning techniques were legal or crossed the line into torture. But he vowed to defend employees who were acting under the legal guidance they were given at the time and noted that any review must consider the pressures that agency personnel were facing.

"This much is clear," Panetta said: "The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaeda was in short supply."

Panetta's defense of CIA personnel used to be called the Nazi defense. But no more. Now the Nazi defense……we were only obeying orders, and hey, we were under a lot of pressure….is the American defense. It is the defense of the lawless.

The only thing in "short supply" from 2001 onward was loyalty to American law and the Constitution. Perception of terror, fearmongering, was all that mattered during Bush/Cheney….and they were successful in selling their lawless coup through that perception of terror.

Now, Obama is creating the perceptions. The perception of getting to the bottom of numerous Bush White House-ordered crimes by appointing an investigator who will start his investigation with the understanding that the Bush White House had the perfect right to order crimes to be committed.

The Washington Post's David Ignatius is a personal case study in what's wrong down in the Village. Again the AB Journal gives Ignatius top billing on it's op-ed page….and again, Ignatius lays down the isolated and rotted Village mindset.

If the U.S. federal government, according to Ignatius, holds it's agencies, like the CIA, accountable for it's actions…..then "other countries" who might otherwise "admire America's committment to democracy and the rule of law" would simply "conclude that we are all plain nuts."

That's what Mr. Village says. If the powerful people in our federal agencies are held accountable for their actions, then America has lost it's collective mind.

Ignatius, admittedly, has a hard time understanding what could be wrong with a vice-president ordering CIA officials to withhold super-secret intelligence programs from Congress, in defiance of existing law. It's just too, too difficult for elected officials to obey the law these days, and naturally with Ignatius, any considerations of investigating or prosecuting high-level conservatives in the Village would only be a cause for group fainting.

Right off the Village bat, Ignatius has it all pegged….

"The latest ''scandals" involving the Central Intelligence Agency are genuinely hard to understand, other than in terms of political payback."

Yep, David….it's all just too "hard to understand". Too hard to understand for anyone. If Villager Dave doesn't understand those "scandals" because they're just too hard to follow, how could a judge or jury or commission understand…let alone those poor ignorant Americans out there.

It''s just gotta' be "political payback." Big Village Dave, like Fox's Bill O'Reilly, is just looking out for the little guy who finds all this stuff "hard to understand", and in the case of Dick Cheney's capture and control of the CIA during the Terror years…….

It would be impossible to prove "criminal intent" for CIA interrogators who operated within the framework of the Justice Department's guidance.

There you have it. The Village has spoken.

Ignatius flaunts his Village citizenry. In Village thinking, the Bush Justice Department COULDN'T have done anything illegal or wrong. If Bush and Cheney cherry-picked John Yoo out of the Justice Department, didn't tell his superiors, and ordered him to write torture memoes in direct violation of existing American law….to Ignatius, that's standard conservative operating procedure.

Why has Ignatius gone all Peak-Village right now?

Attorney General Eric Holder is considering appointing a prosecutor to investigate criminal actions by CIA officers involved in the harsh interrogation of al-Qaida prisoners. But the internal CIA report on which he's said to be basing this decision was referred five years ago to the Justice Department, where attorneys concluded that no prosecution was warranted.

Obama doesn't want an investigation, and Bush/Cheney sure as hell don't want one….and the Village doesn't want one. But Holder, confronted by the egregious nature of recent evidence pointing to numerous national and international war crimes ordered by the Bush administration, is "considering appointing a prosecutor." The nerve of the Attorney General, huh?

Notice Village Dave's thinking. Holder is considering appointing an investigator to look into how the torture memos the Bush Justice Department "legalized" were implemented…..but Ignatius concludes that the Bush Justice Department already looked into those complaints and concluded that no wrongdoing happened. Well, that settles it then, right?

Today in Villageland, holding any conservatives in power to account is simply "gotcha" politics….

President Obama has tried to end this "gotcha" culture….

Try that one out on a local judge or law enforcement representative….."Judge, don't you want to look forward and not backward? Any attempt by you, Judge, to hold me accountable for breaking the law would just be some vindictive payback on your part, Judge. Just more silly "gotcha" politics."

Summarizing…..I often blog about today's corporate "journalists", labeling them the Knee Pad Media, or the Village. David Ignatius' piece today encapsulates the ethos of that Village. If conservatives are in power, according to Villager David Ignatius, those conservatives are above the law and can never be prosecuted, or even investigated, for anything they did while in office. That's the given. Any attempts to go against this given are only and always "political payback" and "gotcha" politics by non-conservatives.

If Democrats are in power, then the Village rules are entirely different. If Democrats are in power, then fibbing about fellatio is a horrendous national threat that demands a $50 million, multiple-year investigation and a teevee sham spectacle of a prosecution.

Here'a an excellent takedown of the Village on this same topic.

Update:
Village regular, Roger Cressey, tells the new and obnoxious MSNBC dumbass anchor, Dylan Ratigan, that those Democrats who want to investigate law breaking are "stupid and foolish…."

A week ago we learned about new evidence confirming that Richard Cheney directed the Bush administration's disclosure of Valerie Plame's covert CIA status…..

A document filed in federal court this week by the Justice Department offers new evidence that former vice president Richard B. Cheney helped steer the Bush administration's public response to the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson's employment by the CIA and that he was at the center of many related administration deliberations.

The administration's discussion of Wilson's link to the CIA was meant to undermine criticism by her husband of administration allegations that Iraq attempted to acquire uranium, a matter that her husband had probed for the CIA, according to testimony presented in a 2007 trial.

A list of at least seven related conversations involving Cheney appears in a new court filing approved by Obama appointees at the Justice Department.

…..

The declaration also said Cheney had helped resolve disputes about "whether to declassify certain information," including portions of a National Intelligence Estimate related to Iraqi weapons programs that Libby leaked to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

And now today, the NY Times headlines this…"Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of CIA Project"

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

…..

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

Taking a wild guess……doesn't it look like when it comes to illegal and potentially illegal behavior coming out of the Bush White House that The Dick is in the center of all of it?

It's being said that the "secret counterterrorism program", knowledge of which was kept from Congress by Cheney for 8 years, was an Assassination program, which, if true, would be yet another illegal and secret program either planned or perpetrated by the Terror Twins.

I know that nothing will come of any of this information. Nancy Pelosi tipped us off early about the extent of the rot on Capitol Hill when she said repeatedly during the Bush regime, "impeachment is off the table." The "change" president, Barack Obama, is doing everything in his power to help conceal Bush/Cheney crimes…so we can all look "forward" rather than backward.

At this point, I don't believe that any forthcoming evidence would make a bit of difference. The skeletons of Bush and Cheney's neighbors could be found in their closets with signed confessions by the Terror Twins attached to the rib cages……and no criminal investigation or criminal charges would result.

We're at a dangerous crossroads in American history. Similar events during the Nixon administration led to a presidential resignation to avoid prosecution. That was a different time. Yes, we had partisanship then too….but there were Congressional representatives that possessed character and integrity.

It is truly bizarre to see the amount of evidence now out in the open that indicts Bush and Cheney….and yet not one move by anyone to hold these two very obvious criminals to account for their actions.

If you don't read Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com regularly…..I highly recommend doing so. I have been reading Greenwald for a few years. He is a constitutional lawyer with a razor sharp writing style that's easy for laypeople, like me, to follow. Of all print media, Greenwald's blog ranks 9th in a list of the most widely read publications.

This morning Greenwald blogs about yesterday's released Inspector General's report on former president Bush's NSA activities.

If you recall, Bush started a secret and illegal program immediately after 9-11 that he eventually called the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"(TSP). Bush's new program directly violated existing wiretapping laws as set forward in the FISA laws passed in 1978.

Let's review….

Bush's secret and illegal program wiretapping Americans without FISA warrants came up for "renewal" in 2004. That was when the whole late night hospital room visit to then Attorney General, John Ashcroft, took place. Andrew Card and Abu Gonzlaes were dispatched to Ashcroft's room to pressure the heavily medicated AG to sign off on Bush's "programs."

The IG report informs us that it was Bush, himself, who badgered Mrs. Ashcroft on the hospital phone insisting that her husband must meet with Card and Gonzales. The reason for this frantic Soprano-like scene was because acting AG, James Comey, would not sign-off renewing the "programs."

Why not?

Conservative Bushies, James Comey, Jack Goldsmith and eventually, even Ashcroft, himself, threatened to resign rather than sign-off on the renewal of the president's illegal "programs."

From the IG report….

"On March 12, 2004 an interagency working group led by OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) was convened reanalyzing the legality of the PSP. In the days that followed, Goldsmith continued to express doubt that a viable legal rationale could be found for some of the Other Intelligence Activities being conducted under the PSP.

On March 16, 2004 Comey drafted a memorandum to White House Counsel Gonzales setting out his advice to the President. According to the memorandum, Comey advised that DOJ remained unable to find a legal basis to support certain Other Intelligence Activities that had been authorized as part of the program and that such activities should be discontinued immediately."

There's no question here that even loyal Bushies thought the President had violated law.

Here's Gonzales responding on the evening of March 16….

"Your memorandum appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of the President's expectations regarding the conduct of the Department of Justice. While the President was, and remains, interested in any thoughts the DOJ may have on alternative ways to achieve effectively the goals of the activities authorized by the presdiential Authorization of March 11, 2004, the president has addressed definitively for the Executive branch in the Presidential Authorization the interpretation of the law."

You see….Bush didn't care whether his own Justice Department had concluded that the "activities" were illegal and needed to be stopped, "immediately." Bush, alone, had already determined the proper "interpretation" of the law. Bush, through Gonzales, was telling his own supporters in the DOJ to f*ck off…..just sign the renewal like I told you to, nobody asked for your legal opinions.

Even though the illegal wiretapping program was eventually signed off on….the "Other Intelligence Activities" were dropped by Bush. We can only speculate on the nature of these "other", apparently, extremely illegal, "activities." The IG report doesn't tell us anything about them.

Now imagine…loyal conservative Bushies, Comey, Goldsmith, Ashcroft, were willing to resign over the "other activities", rather than sign-off giving their approval.

Just how rogue was the Bush White House?

We'll never know.

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.

First, let me state without reservation or qualification, that having Barack Obama as President is a far superior situation for America than if John McCain, with his full-throated, neo-conservative military and foreign policy ideology, were guiding the ship of state.

That said….not only has Obama followed Bush/Cheney footprints on state secrets, transparency, and, now, indefinite detention……but he's also using the same self-contradicting style of "logic" that Mr. Bush and his lackeys repeatedly used in their numerous dissemblings.

Let's take two statements from Obama's Thursday talk about national security. Full transcript here.

"Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists."

AND…

"…there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."

Our courts are "tough enough" to take on trials of hardened "terrorists", except for those cases which "cannot be prosecuted" because, apparently, they're too tough.

What Obama is trying to do here is have it both ways, politically. In the first statement, the President is backhanding the conservative movement's ridiculous sniping about how dangerous it would be to "release" big bad "terrorists" "into the United States". In the second statement, Obama is backhanding the leftist law-and-order crowd while, simultaneously, offering a sop to the scared right, by saying that American law, as it now stands, is insufficient to deal with some "detainees."

Obama's dissonance is similar to George W. Bush's after he illegally ordered the wholesale vacuuming up of all electronic communications by Americans while telling us "wiretaps required a warrant from a judge." It's maddening.

Obama went on to mention the successful federal trials, convictions and imprisonments of Islamic extremist criminals Ramzi Yousef and Zacarias Moussaoui, saying….

"If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo."

But then goes on to say this….

"But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States."

Many criminals, some dangerous, have been released by our judicial system because of various legal violations by law enforcement and/or legal professionals. That's the risk of having a democracy based on the rule of law rather than the rule of men.

But Obama, like Bush before him, want to have it both ways, particularly on this "terrorist" stuff. They want to appeal to the rule of law when convenient, and then appeal to some "extraordinary, everything has changed", circumstances when he wants to rely on his own version of a rule of men.

Finally,…I find this Obama statement breathtakingly identical to something the last administration would say in defense of their lawless plans…..

"But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred."

The United States already has "a legitimate legal framework" from which to either build or throw out criminal cases against suspects. Obama had just referred to that "legitimate legal framework" with praise when he pointed out the already successful convictions of "terrorists", Yousef and Moussaoui.

But, just like Bush and Cheney, Obama wants to do what he wants to do…..wants to have his "legal framework" cake and eat it too.

I'm not sure the nation can successfully navigate yet another dissonant presidency.

Yesterday Obama spoke on the torture issue, Guantanamo, state secrets and national security. The speech was a mixed bag. Some very good stuff…some, not so good. Transcript here.

Why Obama rejects the torture regime of Bush/Cheney…

What's more, they (harsh interrogations, i.e. torture) undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts; they undermined them. And that is why I ended them once and for all.

Why Guantanamo must be closed…

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped Al Qaida recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

How the Guantanamo problem was created initially…

The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican presidents, not wild-eyed liberals. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility. The problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

Where Obama is making a mistake…

..even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases, because evidence may be tainted, but who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States.
…..
We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

We already have clear, lawful standards for those who can't be prosecuted because of prisoner abuse or government malfeasance. If their cases cannot be proven, these prisoners should be deported. That is the price a nation of laws pays when it's highest leaders decide to construct an illegal torture regime.

Obama, like Bush before him, simply doesn't like the clear, lawful standards we already have in place to deal with these cases of government abuse and the unlawful treatment of prisoners. So, Obama creates a whole brand new category of law even though his duty is to execute laws, not make them.

Al Qaida terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture, like other prisoners of war, must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. And that's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law
…..
…our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine in that United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime, that our efforts are consistent with all values and our Constitution.

"prolonged detention". Give that two word phrase some thought. Those are the words of tyrants. "develop an appropriate legal regime"…because Obama, like Bush before him, doesn't like the "legal regime" we already have.

No, Obama didn't create the mess. But that is no excuse for his suggestion for a totally new, backward looking method of "prolonged detention" for prisoners we can't try in court.

Obama isn't really setting a new direction here. He is merely making the unlawfulness of the Bush/Cheney regime his own.

Neo-cons will applaud Obama for agreeing with Bush/Cheney on indefinite detention….but it is our nation who will suffer the consequences, just as it is now suffering the consequences of the lawlessness of Bush/Cheney.

After refusing to limit the interest banksters can charge credit card holders, the Senate went on to pass a more bankster-friendly credit card bill Tuesday. The bill was a lame effort, barely a wrist slap to an industry who regularly bribes our politicians with campaign cash to do it's bidding. The bill passed 90-5.

The Senate voted Wednesday, by a similar vote count of 90-6, to refuse to fund the closing of the American gulag at Guantanamo. The vote had to be interrupted several times to allow for Senators to go back to their offices and change their clothes, and in some cases, their Depends. Damnest thing. Some kind of co-ordinated outbreak of Senatorial pants pissing. Janitors, equipped with mops, were brought in unexpectedly. Terror color code raised, or lowered, to yellow. Messy.

There's more to those wet pants than meets the eye, however. I don't think those 90-5 and 90-6 votes are a coincidence. The Reverend has uncovered what will most likely become known as The Incontinence Conspiracy.

If you haven't been paying attention….the Republicans have been the party of no ever since Obama's inauguration, and so it's curious to find such total agreement now amongst senators of both parties on these two bills.

First, note that the credit card bill which prevents credit card companies from raising interest rates until a holder is delinquent 30 days past the grace period (I told you the bill was lame) had an amendment attached to it. The Tom Coburn (R-OK) amendment. Coburn's amendment ends the prohibition on carrying loaded weapons in our national parks.

Carrying loaded guns in our national parks has nothing, whatsoever, to do with credit card reform…….and that's why the gun toting amendment was attached to the credit card bill. Think about it.

With the passage of this amendment, I won't have time to worry so much about the dangers of wild animals while I'm visiting our national parks, because I'll be worrying too much about the dangers of the wild, loaded-gun toting, humans visiting our national parks. So there's that.

The plot thickens. As all Americans now know, President Obama wants to close Guantanamo. Our greatest protectors, Republicans, and their stenographers, Big Media, have been shouting from the rooftops recently about how very, very scared we should all be over the closing of Guantanamo. Lately, Harry Reid and his Slinky-backboned Democratic brethren have joined in the scaremongering. Hell, I get scared just writing about it.

Obama, not only our President but our nation's number one enemy, wants to release all the prisoners from Guantanamo "into the United States." At first I had calculated that Obama would probably load up a semi-trailer with the 250 odd Gitmo prisoners, drive them to the heartland of America, provide them with suicide belts, give them each a thousand bucks to buy fertilizer, kerosene, C-4 and a few detonators, and then release them, like, behind a 7-11, or something.

But Obama is a slick one. His plan to harm America by releasing all those prisoners approaches Dr. Evil levels of darkness. Good thing Tom Coburn stands in the light so he could thwart Obama's sinister plan. Coburn, with his gun-toting amendment, has clued us all in on the socialist president's war plans against us.

Obama is planning on releasing the most dangerous people in the world…..those being held in Guantanamo…..into our national parks. He's a sly one, isn't he? Without Coburn's pre-emptive, loaded-guns-in-national-parks amendment to the credit card bill…..American visitors to those parks would have been completely vulnerable to terrorist attack. But, by god, not anymore.

Next time you're visiting Yellowstone and you see a Muslim with a vest approaching you…..don't pause for cordial greetings….just draw and fire. Not only will you be protecting yourself, and others, from yet another crazy Muslim…..but you'll also be striking out in defiance of Barack Obama's War Against America.

Don't forget…..keep your powder….dry.