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….

A new, and evil, mind-virus is raging in America. The virus was contracted first inside the executive branch, the branch of government over the past 8 years that has insisted on "unitary executive" status. The "unitary executive", in short, is an extra-constitutional notion declaring that any and all decisions made by the president for "national security" reasons supercede any and all existing American laws. In actuality, the "unitary" doctrine is simply disgraced president Richard Nixon's, "if the president does it, it's not illegal", sentiment….warmed over in some new petri dish labeled "neo-conservative."

The new virus quickly spread to the media Villagers, a group extremely susceptible to Republican presidential claims of being above the law. These Villagers, then, methodically and faithfully spread the destructive virus on to the American public. Severe outbreaks of this virus have been witnessed recently, intensifying because Villagers aren't sure whether the newly elected president has really contracted the virus, or whether he's immune.

The virus leaves it's victims delirious, unable to tell right from wrong, forgetful that America is a nation of laws, not men. One of the most debilitating symptoms of catching this virus is witnessed in the tortured logic spewing out of the mouths of those inflicted with it…..

In recent weeks, Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other officials have strongly defended their counterterrorism methods and credited them with preventing attacks on the United States since 2001. Their implicit argument — that the Obama administration should not question policies that protected Americans — was made more explicit and personal by Michael V. Hayden, the departing C.I.A. director, in a session with reporters on Thursday.

“If I’m going to go to an officer and say, ‘I’ve got a truth commission, or I want to post all your e-mails, or, well, we’ve got this guy from the bureau who wants to talk to you,’ ” Mr. Hayden said, it would discourage such a C.I.A. officer from taking risks on behalf of the new president’s policies.

“We have no right to ask this guy to bet his kid’s college education on who’s going to win the off-year election,” Mr. Hayden said, alluding to legal fees that such a C.I.A. officer might face.Link

Simply consider…..

A bank employee is told by his manager that his work at a bank will be strictly scrutinized according to bank rules and regulations, as well as state and national laws. The employee's e-mails will be subject to regular review, and he will, from time to time, be required to answer questions about his performance by auditors and/or bank regulators.

The bank employee responds….

"If such scrutiny is part of my job, I will be discouraged from taking the risks I need to take while working to reach the greater policy goals of the bank…..making more profits. I can't place my child's college education fund in jeopardy, which is what I would be doing if I had to constantly worry about what lawyers might accuse me of doing while I'm taking risks for the sake of the bank. Sending or receiving e-mails subject to review could place me in a situation where I might have to defend myself with very expensive lawyers and that would be very discouraging and frustrating. Unworkable, really."

In Michael Hayden's fatally infected mind, and in the fatally infected minds of many stenographic Village workers…..the response by the bank employee in my hypothetical is reasonable, sound, and indisputable.

Truthium tablets are the only known cure….and they're, sadly, in short supply.

The Akron Beacon Journal editorial staff, with consistency, has defended the lawless and unconstitutional foreign and military policies of the Bush-Cheney regime. From attacking Iraq unilaterally, to outing CIA agent Valerie Plame, to torture….the Beacon has sought to justify, in virtually every instance, the criminal actions of this hated administration.

The Beacon does so again this morning.

In a piece entitled "Accounting for torture", Beacon editors spell out why there shouldn't be any. Accounting for torture, that is.

Let's start with this….

"As careless and damaging as these actions (torture)have proved, inflicting immense harm to the American image, they are more about "really bad policies" than "genuine crimes." Be as critical as you want of Rumsfeld and the others. Admit, too, that they genuinely believed such steps were necessary."

Hard to believe, isn't it? That someone in charge of writing about Bush and Cheney's admitted crimes of torture could call up the Nixon defense….if a president violates the law, it's not a "genuine crime", but only "really bad policy." I may have a "really bad policy", personally, of stealing other people's stuff……but that doesn't mean when I steal other people's stuff, I'm committing a "genuine crime." Provided, of course, that I "genuinely believe" stealing is "necessary."

Many of the Villagers are currently flailing about in search of legacy building material for George W. Bush. It's been so difficult finding anything of value that Bush's "personality" is now being tossed around as his legacy. No kidding. The Beacon editorial writer decides to add his penny's worth of revisionism by telling us that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al., at the very least, meant well by ordering torture…..and it is because of this well-meaning motivation that crimes are not actually crimes…..

"Recall the mentality inside the Bush team after the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax episodes. Many in the White House and elsewhere believed the next ghastly attack was imminent. The president wanted no holds barred in preventing the next strike. In that spirit, the president declared that "enemy combatants" were not protected by the Geneva Conventions, and John Yoo and Jay Bybee of the Justice Department wrote a memo opening the way to the use of torture. Donald Rumsfeld, as secretary of defense, authorized coercive interrogation tactics that went far beyond previous Pentagon policies.

As careless and damaging as these actions have proved, inflicting immense harm to the American image, they are more about "really bad policies" than "genuine crimes." Be as critical as you want of Rumsfeld and the others. Admit, too, that they genuinely believed such steps were necessary. Link"

Let that 'thinking' wash over you.

The American people are supposed to "admit" that because the Bush regime "genuinely believed" lawbreaking was "necessary", it wasn't really lawbreaking at all…..only "really bad policy."

When elected leaders swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land…..we're not to hold them to it…..if those elected leaders "genuinely believe" breaking that oath and violating American laws is a "necessary" "policy."

Why not?

The Bushies' "mentality" must be factored in, says the Beacon. The reason that the Beacon gives for not calling criminality…umm….criminality, deserving of prosecution,…..is because the Bushies, oblivious to numerous pre-9-11 warnings, "believed the next ghastly attack was imminent", immediately AFTER 9-11. The only thing "ghastly" here is the thinking of the writer.

Bush, the Beacon explains, the same president who dismissed an early August, 2001 warning about Bin Laden by telling the briefer, "you've covered your ass now"…., AFTER 9-11, "wanted no holds barred in preventing the next attack."

Because Bush failed to protect the U.S. on 9-11, because Bush failed to protect against anthrax attacks a month later, because the Bushies felt guilty for not protecting the U.S. ….it was not lawbreaking to order illegal torture, rendition, "enemy combatants", and all the rest…..AFTER we were attacked. It was only "bad policy."

The Beacon editorial concludes by calling for a toothless "commission" to deal with the Bushies' "bad policies". Not prosecutions, as any normal citizen who willingly and admittedly broke the law would endure….oh no….that would just be too mean-spirited and vindictive towards Our Great Protector Leaders whose Dear and Patriotic Hearts were, you know, in the right place.

By Obama ordering a dog and pony show commission, the Beacon concludes….

"In that way, the country would take responsibility, helping to repair its image by identifying those who so misjudged what serves American interests."

Did you get that? The American people will "take responsibility", not the Bushies. How will we take responsibility? By adhering to principles of law and order? Don't be silly. "By identifying those who misjudged."

It would be like calling a lineup in a rape case, identifying the raper, letting him go, and calling that, "taking responsibility."

I have breaking f*cking news for the Beacon….America has already "identified" the 'misjudgers'….and they're not guilty of simply misjudging, or creating bad policies….they're guilty of breaking the law.