Overnight open thread - Obama Empowers Torturers? UPDATED

I ought to add... (2.00 / 5)

That the real criminal here is Cheney. The last link I provided to the HuffPo article makes a great exposition of Liz and Dick's frenetic activity over the last few months.

It was only by torture that Cheney got the (false) intelligence he wanted to hear about an Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein Link. Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was the repeatedly tortured in Libya under CIA supervision in the search for some linkage. He apparently committed suicide, but his discredited confession under extreme duress was cited by Colin Powell in the UN.

I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

Bob Cesca goes on

And, as we're all aware, that UN speech outlined the administration's entire case for connecting Iraq, al-Qaeda and WMD, and thus the case for war. We now know that one of the chief conclusions in the speech was actually formed from the tortured confessions of a man, al-Libi, who was flogged, buried alive, then forced to confirm the administration's mushroom cloud fantasy

So basically you have one crime against humanity spawning a much larger one against hundreds of thousands Iraqis, the prestige of the US, and the lives of its service personnel.

Something is very rotten here. I thought Obama was the one could begin to draw the poison.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 18:42:36 PM CDT

Obama did the right thing. (2.00 / 5)

From all that I have read about this, the commanders on the ground did not want the photos released because they fear more intense lashing out at American troops.  We know that torture was committed.  We have seen pictures of that very same torture.  We also know that the torture didn't work.  I don't think that further release of photos is creating a plausible deniability of what happened or that it is part of some cover up by the Obama administration.

I read a tremendously powerful commentary written by Brandon Friedman of VetVoice on the issue of torture. (It was also posted on HuffPo.)  His commentary has colored my thoughts on torture (which I was against before), but now I feel that I have stronger arguments for my opposition to it.  Our military is trying to change the makeup of both war theaters so that we can extricate our troops quickly.  In order to do that, we have to build support for our troops.  I truly believe that these photos will inspire deeper hatred towards our troops and endanger many more of them, and I am not sure what purpose releasing them would do now.  Again, WE KNOW that we tortured.  We WANT the Iraqis and the Afghanis coming to our side without fear of being tortured.  They know that our new Commander in Chief has said NO TORTURE.  We need to rebuild trust with them rather than reopening the wounds that just won't seem to heal properly.  

I think of that cartoon that was done with the image of image of Allah and the remarkable backlash that ensued.  

Ultimately, I want our troops home safe and sound and in an expedient manner.  Once we are out, then release all the photos that we have.  But until then, I do think that the safety of our troops comes before our right to SEE in this situation.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:29:07 PM CDT

I think that's a strong argument... (2.00 / 3)

But there's a strong counter argument too.

Obama's election won the US an enormous amount of credit in the world, and much of that percolated over to the Arab and Muslim Street. The closing of Guantanamo, the disavowal of torture, the appearance on Muslim TV, all that helped restore respect and - I'd wager - save the lives of some service personnel.

Unless Obama explicitly states he is going to launch a commission of enquiry, this U-Turn looks precisely like that, a U-Turn. Those extremists who had been telling their friends 'Oh don't believe in Obama. He's just a show. America doesn't change...' are thus given more ammunition. And I don't just mean that metaphorically.

The further revelations about Cheney and torture only make this more urgent. Beyond kevlar and military strategy, the thing that really protects American troops is the good name of the US. If principles of international law are deemed expedient, even to the understandable point of getting the troops home before the photos are released, the long term impression is of a nation quick to retreat from principles when they become awkward.

We'll probably never know which causes more harm to US military personnel in the long term. Clearly the whole conduct of both wars to date, by Bush and Cheney, has been the real disaster.  

I was surprised the pictures were going to be released when it was announced a few weeks ago. But I thought it was a bold radical move. I trusted Obama's initial instinct. There's no way, no matter how much I wish it, that this won't be seen as a climb down under pressure. Part of me wishes he'd never announced it back then. But whether he was right in the first place, or right now, climb down it undoubtedly is.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:43:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It may be that the long-term goals outweigh the short-term (2.00 / 3)

gratification.  Obama's election certainly gave the Muslim world hope for a different American president.  I think they, like many in other parts of the world are, however, looking to see real action to match his words.  Once we have started meeting the SOFA agreements in Iraq and begun to implement an Af/Pak strategy that shows a shift from the bomb-the-crap-out-of-civilians strategy that has been the hallmark of our plan thus far then the world will really see that things have changed.

I guess I just wonder if this is a delay tactic to give his policies a chance to kick in.  I don't know.  I'm disheartened a bit but not still without hope.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:56:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Plus (2.00 / 1)

During his first few days in office, he signed three executive orders regarding our military, and one of those orders was to cease all forms of torture.  The decisions that he has made regarding our military have been impressive.  To me, he has changed our direction in that area with a swiftness I could not imagine even with his election.  He has made a HUGE deal about stepping back from the Bush administration's position on torture by releasing all sorts of memos in record fashion.  We know the details in a way that I never expected, to be honest.  The pictures are just a graphic representation of what we already know.  I can't see how that helps anyone.

He has not backed down from policy.  People are going to believe what they want to about this decision, but I am not going to hand Faux News watchers ANY ammunition.  Cheney is DEAD WRONG, and he has proven to be wrong all along.  The memos are still being released, and I expect the revelations to continue.  But some decisions regarding secrecy and our military must be maintained for other reasons.  A chickhawk's opinion does not matter to me as much as the safety of our troops.

And he obviously has many people looking into what went wrong.  Our DOJ has done almost a complete 180 turn.  I am simply astounded at times that they have released these memos.  And there are more to come.  The Bush administration got a lot of backlash within the military ranks about torture, but he ignored them entirely.  Obama has been more open to listening to his commanders on the ground, and I respect that.

And honestly, while I appreciate a steadfastness to holding tight to his word, I acknowledge that there will be times when circumstances have changed that his decisions will have to change. I place this situation squarely in that category.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:48:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wish I could say something that would make this less troubling, (2.00 / 1)

but I've got nothing. Oh well, that's never stopped me before. Here goes nothing.

There is some speculation that the UK memos were written in response to a request by the UK government. They needed cover beyond their own official secrets act to keep this information from the public. I have no idea if this is true or not, but even if it is true all it does is implicate the UK government. It does nothing to absolve Obama.

The photos are another matter. I'm of two minds about this. One side believes the photos won't add much to the debate. About the only good their release would do is to help swing sentiment in the US for further investigations. I'm not so sure that would be the case. It might actually make the partisan divide even greater.

That doesn't seem to be the greatest concern, tho. Obama's statement makes it clear that the justification is a fear of negative reactions in the Muslim world. I can't buy that argument. The photos from Abu Ghraib are all over the Internet. Hell, Abu Ghraib has its own wiki page with plenty of photos. I would think that 10's of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani deaths would have greater impact than these photos. Does anyone really believe they can get more angry at us? After all, it's not as if they don't already know what has been going on.

The biggest issue to me isn't the attempt to stifle the release of the redacted memos in the UK or to keep the photos from being released. The biggest issue is whether or not we are going to have a real investigation into whether or not war crimes have been committed and whether the investigators will be empowered to recommend prosecutions based on their investigation.

These are two big disappointments. They are not change you can believe in, for one thing. It's more of the same. And it sure as hell isn't transparency in government. More like opacity.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:46:06 PM CDT

Glad you waded in... (2.00 / 1)

It's a very strange moment for me to feel this cold chill of realpolitik and doubt about Obama's actions. One of the reasons I express this is that the only way out, and only justification for non release, is the promise of some proper commission of enquiry, and we haven't had that yet.

BTW - given their close cooperation in intelligence matter, I'd pretty much guess the British were complicit with the Americans in torture. And here, we have no memos to cover it. It's explicitly illegal, in defiance of both British Law and the European Human Rights Act to which we are binding signatories.

Very troubling indeed, John. I know who the real bad guys are in this. But someone needs to stand up to them.

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:53:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The photos from Aby Gharib (0.00 / 0)

did cause an uprising in Fallujah when they were released.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:24:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Deep breath. (2.00 / 3)

I'm not sure I disagree with Obama's action although his statement regarding it leaves a lot to be desired.  I think the generals in Afghanistan and Iraq presuaded him that the release of these photos could have an adverse affect on how the troops are treated in those countries.  This is significant because it could damage our capabilities to draw down in Iraq and have any successful strategy in Afghanistan.  Does this change of heart also have anything to do with the apparent change of command in Afghanistan?  McChristol (sp?) is going to face serious questioning in Congress (at least he should) regarding his involvement in the Pat Tillman debacle and well as denying the Red Cross access in Iraq during the early part of the war.  But, those issues aside, I do wonder what's going on with Afghanistan.  And, how, if at all, does this flip-flop fit into the picture.

Also, I've seen a lot of people make the assumption that this is another signal that Obama is not going to allow prosecutions.  I simply do not know.  Although Holder said today that they would follow the evidence, keeping the CIA agents away from prosecution, however.

Frankly, I'm not sure what good releasing the photos does.  Does the public automatically have a right to see them?  Why?  Should we also see the crime scene photos from the recent killing of the five US soldiers in Iraq?  Again, what really is the point of releasing these photos?  Lots of people want to satisfy their curiousity or to prove how bad folks can act in time of conflict or to justify their outrage that we went to war in the first place or as another reason to hate the Bush administration officials who talked us into war in the first place.

Having said all that, I wish the president hadn't changed his mind.  As with the torture memos, although folks seem to forget the point, the courts have ruled that these pictures should be released.  So, if he was looking for cover he already had it.  I think he's put himself in a worse place now than he would have been in had he just let them come out.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:51:02 PM CDT

The photos are not of some isolated event (2.00 / 2)

they are part of a bigger picture. If taken in isolation then yeah, I would agree that preventing their release might be justified. The thing is, tho, these photos are not of an isolated incident. They are part of the evidence in a much larger matter. Is the danger their release might pose to US troops greater than their value in convincing the public that investigations are not only justified but necessary?

This goes to the larger question about this whole affair. Which will do more damage in the long run to our country and its reputation, full investigations and possible prosecutions or sweeping this under the rug? I know which one I think is best, but then I'm not the 'Decider in chief'.

 

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:04:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know how much the release of the photos (2.00 / 3)

will sway public opinion.  Lots of folks think torturing Muslims is okay because they are out to kill Americans.  The ends justify the means defense.  The rest of us already know that what the Bush administration authorized or sanctioned is illegal and needs to be prosecuted.

It's not like releasing the photos will lead to the prosecution of those who directly committed the torture; according to the government they've already been dealt with.  I would like to see some evidence of that.  The American people also already know what we did at Abu Ghraib in full color and apparently are still okay with torture.  I don't get it.

I want the pictures released.  But I also recognize that I don't know all that Obama used to weigh this decision.  It looks bad but I'm still not completely disheartened.  yet.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:16:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a wild card here (2.00 / 2)

Pakistan.

I don't know how the American media is covering Pakistan, but they're, as one reporter said there, "One Danish cartoon away from being the Al-Qaeda State"

These photos are going to be plastered all over the world. If this lights the fire that finally causes the Islamabad goverment to fall, Obama's presidency may very well be over and we will no longer be talking about the horrible things did three, four, six years ago, but rather how "Obama caused the Pakistani government to fall because he had to satisfy his left flank"

The courts are going to force him to release them anyway...if they don't, then the system in America has a bug in it. That will allow him to shift any blame caused by it to the courts rather than his administration.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:12:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep. (0.00 / 0)

Afghanistan/Pakistan is one of the reasons I'm not sure I completely buy the "protect the troops" argument.  Although MSNBC reported this morning that the generals in Iraq and Afghanistan really pushed Obama not to release the photos at this time.

That may have played some role but I think the larger picture includes Obama's strategy with Afghanistan and, probably even more importantly, as you point out Pakistan.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:14:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama is not crafting new messaging, (2.00 / 3)

this message has been pounded non-stop by conservative radio for the past few weeks (or since the topic of releasing the photos was raised) in exactly those terms.

One notable exchange a week or so ago between a conservative host and a liberal guest (a rare event on right-talk radio) had me talking to the car.  The host kept interrupting with variations on "how many American soldiers do you want to die?".  The guest did a reasonable job of holding his own but I really wanted him to escalate the topic.  It is a very difficult topic to address well in words - more difficult in text - but the answer is that there is no more honorable sacrifice an American soldier can make than to die defending the honor and integrity of his or her country.

I'll have to see Obama's full statement before I can give my specific comment to it, but I think that Uygur overstates the point.  Obama has already said that those who performed the torture were following orders and trying to protect America (which I believe they were, misguided or not).  I don't see anything in the shape of his statement to indicate that he setup "anyone who tries to show their misdeeds" as endangering America, that's hyperbolic extension.  The fact is that those pictures could indirectly lead to a US soldier being killed.  The tough fact to swallow is that this may be the price of liberty and truth - among the only ideals worth sending people to die for.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:18:53 PM CDT

I think you nailed it on that last comment Chris (2.00 / 2)

Sixty five years ago Americans, Brits, Canadians and others stormed the death zone beaches of Normandy, risking their lives, for the values of liberty, truth, and the end of despotic Gestapo regime (at this point the unimaginable horrors of the Shoah weren't beyond comprehension and knowledge).

US Troops are in harms way now because of those same values, albeit attenuated and degraded by spurious intelligence from a previous administration.

If you're fighting for decency and justice, how do you retreat from it without undermining your ultimate cause?

I think we're all saying the same thing. The only justification from a retreat from transparency is a tactical manouevre.

My fear - and its only a fear - is that the US military command is still very politically powerful, and that in a sense this could be Obama's DADT moment.

I'm hoping not, but Bill was wily and tough too, but a combination of right wing opinion and military reluctance won the day back in the early 90s.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:31:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's the other side of the talk-radio rant of (2.00 / 2)

"there is nothing I wouldn't do to save American soldiers!".  Well, there should be.  They die defending us because there are things we don't do.

I always hope someone would ask one of these asshats; "Would you hold a gun to a child's head if that saved a soldier?  Would you pull the trigger if it saved ten?"

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:51:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

EXACTLY!!!! (2.00 / 2)

I want to know what they would say.  Fucking chickhawks.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:56:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Exactly. (2.00 / 3)

If they're all that tough they know that sometimes you make life or death decisions, your people die because of them, and you have to STFU and live with it.  These are the same pussy bastards who talked all Rambo about how taking casualties was part of the game when it worked for them to say that, but now they can't find the nuts to risk lives defending the sanctity of the American position on human rights.  

America was founded on the principles of human rights, you miserable fuckers, and that's what our folks have always died for.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:04:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

benefit of the doubt. (2.00 / 4)

obama is not infallible, but taking it all into account - there most certainly is a strategic reason for this...

"I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

---

by: canadian gal @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:24:24 PM CDT

yeah, let;s give the President some leeway here.. (2.00 / 3)

I think he had taken the decision to defer the release after due consideration of pros and cons.  

---

by: louisprandtl @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:43:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have we a right to know those pros and cons? (2.00 / 4)

Er... isn't that the point of a democracy. I'm a bit lost.

Just to make myself clear Louis.

He changed his mind. That's the worrying thing.

Given the integrity and strength of purpose in Obama (something as you know I've believed in from the outset) I also know it must be something very large and powerful that made him make this reversal. A case of implacable force meeting immovable object.

I trust Obama. I'm not sure I trust the Pentagon as it has been bequeathed by Cheney and Bush. So I'd prefer to know what that immovable object was rather than just guess at it.

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:45:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hey...you're right...but consider the fact that Obama (2.00 / 4)

did allow the process for releasing the photos. It's only the last moment that he chose to stop the release. I agree with there must be something that came up bothered him or some other overpowering factor that made him to change his mind. I don't know whether it is DADT repeal or the tenuous situation in Pakistan or something more terrible that came out of Bush/Cheney closet...

---

by: louisprandtl @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:51:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He has the right to change his mind. (2.00 / 2)

From what he has said and based on extensive talks with military commanders, he has changed his mind based on circumstances.  Obama is not a waffler.  He has not vacillated on his word in any significant way, so I am certain that his decision was well thought out in that manner.  He knew that the left would be upset and somehow that the right would feel vindicated, but he does not seem swayed by public opinion.  I believe that he made a reversal in decision in a carefully thought out manner giving consideration to all the facts at hand...and those facts may very well have changed since his announcement that he would release the photos.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:51:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I count in the centre... (2.00 / 2)

...and I abhor the chicken littles who cry traitor at every move. I've never blinked in those instances.

But having followed Obama since 2004 I can't think of a similar U-Turn. Perhaps his position on Rev Wright, but everyone could see the dynamic. And this is way way more serious, both morally and militarily.

If facts have changed, then I think his loyal supporters should ask what that is.

I respect and admire Obama as much as anyone. But I also hear alarm bells when people tell me to 'trust' anyone's 'instincts' when it comes to the US presidency. He carefully weighed up the choices I'm sure. But he came to power saying he would be transparent, and that he was asking the people to step up and take responsibility.

He changed his mind. Something happened. One day, I need to know.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:06:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And that's where you and I disagree. (2.00 / 1)

I think he gave compelling and honest reasons why he changed his mind.  These reasons weren't enough to hide the memos or to dissuade the Senate from holding hearings, but something about the actual images is more than he is willing to do at this moment.  I would have more problems if he were not releasing memos and continuing to cover up Gitmo.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:10:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But those reasons haven't changed... (2.00 / 1)

...since his original decision to publish the photos. That's the heart of my confusion, and I suspect many other peoples.

I hope he clarifies this further at some stage.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:13:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know what articles you've read but it (2.00 / 1)

appears that he has had reservations all along but talked to the generals on the ground who expressed concern.

For a guy who is supposed to be able to talk really well he hasn't been as clear on this as he could be.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:22:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

BTW, I wasn't criticizing your sources just not (2.00 / 2)

sure how much you've read.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:23:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've been a bit out of the loop on this... (1.33 / 3)

Hence the reason for writing this diary with a question mark at the top, and a call for explanation for this baffled Brit.

reading a bit more there's one other permutation which we might have missed.

Obama could be playing a very adroit double game, acting as CinC here, gaining the confidence of his troops and some leeway from the right, but still knowing the courts will overrule him and get the photos released. Best of both worlds IMHO. If that's his game, then Kudos to him for being all things to all people.

But let's see how it plays out.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:27:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Good policies ultimately make good politics". (2.00 / 4)

As Gergen just said on CNN.  Thoughtful commentary he just provided.

BTW, our own Dawn Teo met President Obama today in Arizona.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:01:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cool (2.00 / 2)

I hope dawn writes about it soon.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 05:46:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We do know (2.00 / 3)

military commanders warned him about the potential effect on troops in Muslim countries, specifically in Afghanistan where some of this torture occured. I don't think the problem is that we don't know why he changed his mind, I think the problem is we don't accept the reasoning.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:35:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well said. (2.00 / 1)

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:41:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's exactly it. (2.00 / 2)

After watching some more discussion on it, I think that's just it.  I like David Gergen's take on it best: "it's a 49/51 call and there is no win for the President.  He listened to his general's and in this case sided with them."

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:53:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What pissing people off (0.00 / 0)

is that this was the position of Dick Cheney as well...that releasing these photos would put American troops in jeopardy.

But I think Cheney's right here, as much as I HATE to admit it.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 00:32:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, Obama can't use that reasoning because Bush (0.00 / 0)

already did.  That means Obama=Bush.  Maybe, in this case, they are both right.  But we can't have that because Bush was never right.

But, hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:17:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

and I think Bush was right on this (0.00 / 0)

I actually defended Bush when he said...but I also didn't trust that this was Bush actual reasoning either.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 12:59:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I do get the sense that something isn't quite right (2.00 / 1)

with all of this.  Maybe my tin foil is on too tight but my innards are jumpy.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:58:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There were a number of points where I wish Bush had changed his mind. nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: creamer @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:43:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I found Andrew Sullivan's take on this interesting. (2.00 / 4)

Sully has been a strong opponent of the Bush/Cheney torture regime and has been surprisingly patient with Obama since the election. He's not so forgiving on this one.

The President Explains

Here's how he has defended the decision not to release the photos of prisoner abuse:

"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the images we remember from Abu Ghraib," the president said on the South Lawn of the White House. "But they do represent conduct that didn't conform with the Army manual."

Obama said the publication of the photos would not add any additional benefit to investigations being carried out into detainee abuse -- and could put future inquires at risk.
"In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would further flame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger. ... I fear the publication of these photos may only have a chilling effect on future investigations of detainee abuse."

Let's unpack this. It's understandable that releasing new evidence of the widespread torture and abuse policy of Bush and Cheney, including techniques that were tailored specifically against Muslims, could inflame the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, the two newest military theaters for the US. On the brink of what may be a brutal summer in all theaters in a war whose purpose is now opaque, one can understand the caution, and there is no reason to doubt the genuine worries of commanders in the field. But it is important to remember that it is the abuse that inflames, not the accounting of the abuse. And for Obama Agblood to act as an extension of the Bush era of secrecy is potentially more damaging to the US and its interests and servicemembers. He risks looking like Bush's continuation, not a clear caesura. That does not help the war, although the loathing of America in Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan is so intense it is hard to see how anything could make it worse.

He has more to say and then this...

You cannot show weakness in the face of this shamelessness. Maybe it's a long game and accountability is a dish best served cold and late. But what if there's always a reason in an endless war of occupation of multiple countries not to serve it at all?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 20:54:35 PM CDT

It's Obama's "they aren't as bad as what we've already seen" (2.00 / 1)

that makes me shake my head.  Are they almost as bad or not nearly as bad?

I do have to disagree with Sullivan about one point but I've got to rush home to watch the president's commencement address.  I'll bring it up later.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:12:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Senate Hearings on the Torture Memos ongoing (2.00 / 3)

More and more revelations to come...

I strongly urge you to read this soldier's testimony of his experience as an interrogator in Iraq and his opposition to torture.

This is why I support this decision and is at the heart of Brandon's argument:

The final pragmatic argument that I offer against torture and abuse is that future adversaries will be less likely to surrender to us during combat.  During the first Gulf War, thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered to American forces knowing that they would be fairly treated as prisoners of war.  This same rational was present during World War II, where German soldiers fought and evaded in the vicinity of Berlin for the privilege of being captured by American versus Russian troops.  If future adversaries are unwilling to surrender to us because of the manner in which we've treated prisoners in the current conflict, it will have a real cost in American lives.

 

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:06:11 PM CDT

That is an amazing piece (2.00 / 3)

I urge everyone to read it too. But it also strikes to the heart of my still troubled heart.

It only emphasises further the need to make a radical break with all the moral degradation of torture and prison abuse, and the long term military dangers it poses to US troops.

Keeping to the original plan of publishing the photos, or at least announcing a tribunal or commission of enquiry, would make that break more salient.

Somehow this recent decision muddies the waters.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:11:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Several of his recent decisions in this area have (2.00 / 1)

been cause for concern.  It's the one area I didn't anticipate having to be worried about.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:20:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, it is the one area where he is most susceptible (2.00 / 2)

to pressure from the Right. Every Dem has to work to evade the 'weak on defense' charge. Despite all of the proof to the contrary, most Americans think the Democrats (read liberals) are soft on crime, on defense, and on terrorism. Anytime Obama tries to pull back from Bush policies on terrorism he'll be accused of wanting to mollycoddle terrorists and endangering American troops.

This urban myth has been around for far too long. It wasn't Republicans who led this country to victory in WWII. It was JFK and LBJ that took us into the Vietnam war (sadly), It was Nixon that retreated from Vietnam. It was Reagan who ran away from Lebanon after one bombing.

Democrats are weak on defense and yet almost all of the real chickenhawks are conservative Republicans. Here's a partial list.

Bush - AWOL for at least 1 year, which amounts to desertion.
Cheney - 5 deferments and the infamous "I had other priorities" statement.
Mitch McConnell - did not serve
John Boehner - did not serve
"Big John" Cornyn - did not serve
John Kyl - did not serve
Roy Blunt - did not serve
Rudy Gulianni - did not serve
Fred Thompson - did not serve
Karl Rove - did not serve
Newt Gingrich - did not serve
Phil "It's all in your head" Gramm - did not serve
Richard Shelby - did not serve
Paul Wolfowitz, did not serve
Joe Lieberman - did not serve

The chickenhawk cheerleaders
# George Will, did not serve
# Chris Matthews, Mediawhore, did not serve. (However, apparently served in the Peace Corps.)
# Bill O'Reilly, did not serve
# Paul Gigot, did not serve.
# Bill Bennett, Did not serve
# Pat Buchanan, did not serve
# Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a 'pilonidal cyst' [see "The Rush Limbaugh Story" by Paul D. Colford, St. Martin's Press, 1993, Chapter 2: Beating the Draft.])
# Michael Savage (aka Michael Alan Weiner) - did not serve, too busy chasing herbs and botany degrees in Hawaii and Fiji
# John Wayne, did not serve
# Pat Robertson - claimed during 1986 campaign to be a "combat veteran." In reality, was a "Liquor Officer."
# Bill Kristol, did not serve
# Sean Hannity, did not serve.
# Kenneth Starr, did not serve
# Antonin Scalia, did not serve
# Clarence Thomas, did not serve
# Ralph Reed, did not serve
# Michael Medved, did not serve
# Charlie Daniels, did not serve
# Ted Nugent, did not serve
# Country Singer Toby Keith, did not serve. (1)

 

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:02:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cornyn evaded draft 6 times. Fucker. (0.00 / 0)

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:40:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't want to get too far off-topic, but I think you should look at this page (2.00 / 2)

Forget the stuff about Bush being AWOL. Read the list of cuts the Bush administration made to veteran benefits and then tell me again how much the Republicans support the troops.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:57:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Revolting. (2.00 / 1)

I have seen several compilations over the years.  But the silver lining?  THIS is why I love the interwebs.  People can put up these websites and track this bullshit.  I LOVE IT.  I feel like it is power in the people's hands.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 23:06:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How dare you say John Wayne didn't serve. (2.00 / 1)

He was in all those war movies (actually, including one of my favorite movies The Longest Day).  You, sir, take that back.

As for the rest, screw 'em.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:21:13 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The strength in American policy during war (2.00 / 2)

has long been that surrender has been an option. With exceptions, certainly, but one of the nice things about actually occupying the moral high ground, is that when we do so, we are then in a much better position with the international community to ask for their assistance, and we are in a much better position to get folks to turn evidence.

Oddly enough, I invoke David Kennedy's work with gangs and drugs. Heavy handedness only isolates our efforts--and we need to win over these folks. We need them to police their own, and we cannot do that if they fear for their neighbors. And fear them.

This effort is not just a military operation, but it boils down to what needs to be addressed as a law enforcement matter. We need to win these folks over, and the shift to our troops being in these areas, learning the ins and outs of these neighborhoods and villages, and with lessening the damage done, is the only way we are going to make any lasting impact.

---

by: hubiestubert @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:39:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Eh, sucks (2.00 / 3)

Probably releasing the photos wouldn't cause more damage than everything else that has occurred.  But then, I'm pretty far removed from the warzone.  Hopefully they will eventually be released.

---

by: rfahey22 @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 21:40:13 PM CDT

btw... (2.00 / 3)

since this is an open thread, watch an epicurean feat of fail.

"I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

---

by: canadian gal @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:38:00 PM CDT

wtf?!?!?! (2.00 / 3)

can illegal aliens vote?!?!?!  they really are stretching to fill that program...

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:46:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are they cropping the pictures on screen to not show lips? (2.00 / 3)

I guess Fox hasn't had it's first male/male kiss yet?  Would they ask Lucy to pretend not to be pregnant, too?  Homophobic much, Fox?

That's about the creepiest thing I've seen in a long time.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 22:58:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HAHAHAHA (2.00 / 3)

I doubt he hates just boy on boy kissing!  I bet Bill sleeps in a separate twin bed from his wife and that the stork brought their children to them.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 23:07:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The seething homophobia of O'Reilly is so much (2.00 / 2)

apparent. And his comment about 'illegal aliens' being allowed to vote in American Idol...arghhhh....Ignoramus Fool!!

---

by: louisprandtl @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:13:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh noes! (2.00 / 1)

Gays are invading the entertainment industry...

You. Don't. Say.

I, for one, am shocked.  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 01:31:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:49:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's about political will, imho. (2.00 / 3)

It doesn't exist. Obama's credibility on National Security? Zilch. He hasn't earned it. Once he has pulled off a couple of successes, he can begin to take on Cheney and the rest. Until then, anytime he picks this fight, he's instantly susceptible to the argument that he's making America unsafe with no real chance at a defense.

Sullivan is great, and easily one of the best sources for commentary on the issue that you can find. But he doesn't operate in the world that exists right now. Obama has a ton of public support, but significantly less in Washington. He spends political capital every time he moves on this front, and he has to really make that spread as far as he can.

It would be horrifying to me to see Obama LOSE the debate on this subject. I want all this information to be released, but I can wait. All we NEEDED was for him to end the practice and move in the opposite direction, and he is. The rest is just whatever he can manage.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:26:15 AM CDT

To be clear (2.00 / 1)

I'm not saying I don't grant Obama credibility on national security. But in the real world, most people would be split or have no opinion on whether he is keeping us safe.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 03:27:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You make an excellent point here, (2.00 / 1)

but how do we know he really ended the practice if we don't have any transparency?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:15:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a question that can never be answered. (2.00 / 1)

Say they do release the pictures.  How do we know there aren't more?

They've said they've closed the CIA's black sites.  Have they?  Suppose they let the Red Cross into five closed sites.  How do we know there aren't more somewhere else.  They've said they've released those that were held at the black sites.  Suppose they make 25 ex-detainees available to the Red Cross.  How do we know there aren't more?  We'll never know.

Until someone proves to me that he's lied about any of this I'll take him at his word.  I trust him that far because I think he is a decent guy.  That's a huge difference between him and Bush/Cheney.  I wouldn't trust those two any further than I could throw them because he know they lied and hid things.  Obama isn't hiding the fact that the pictures exist; he's hiding the content.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:31:14 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We never will. (0.00 / 0)

and we won't even if he releases pictures.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:01:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course we won't, (0.00 / 0)

but transparency goes a long ways towards deterring this kind of behavior. Lack of transparency makes it easier and more tempting to engage in something like this.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:26:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only if there's popular support against it (2.00 / 1)

if the people want a government that tortures, it doesn't matter how much transparency there is, it'll happen.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 17:00:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And if the people want the government to break other laws they (0.00 / 0)

it will happen. Until the countries that have treaties with us start banding together to force us to uphold those treaties. We can either do that or become a pariah.

BTW, "the public" me and you most of the other posters on here. The wingnuts don't get to dictate what goes in this country. There was a time when "the public" wanted blacks to be slaves. There was a time when "the public" wanted the native Americans to be wiped out. There was a time when "the public" didn't want women to vote. Need I go on?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 21:48:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blacks were slaves, Native Americans were wiped out (2.00 / 1)

and women couldn't vote until the country was almost 150 years old. None of that changed until public opinion did. There is more pressure on the President to sweep this under the rug and move on than to do something about it. The only outrage we're seeing is on the liberal blogsphere which is small and not very influential.

I have liberal friends who shake their head in disgust when they read stuff from Gleen Greenwald and David Sirota and wonder "is there where the Democratic Party is headed"

but, I also come from a part of the country where I sat in a college classroom with a bunch of college students who laughed and made jokes about the Abu Ghirab thing, so.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:47:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And what changed public opinion? (0.00 / 0)

Nothing changes unless someone takes the lead on an issue. Sitting around complaining or going, "Woe is me" won't change anything.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:49:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Time helped (0.00 / 0)

but public opinion isn't going to change tomorrow and hasn't so far.

We may be able to change people's minds on the topic of torture, but in the meantime they haven't and it may mean that the Bush administration gets away with everything they did.

It wouldn't be the first time an American president got away with crimes against humanity...maybe it'll be the last.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 23:55:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think opinions have change. I know mine has, and I don't think I'm alone. (2.00 / 1)

If you took a poll October 2001 and compared it to today I think you'd see a huge difference.  And don't forget the the main issue is still "what is torture?" not "is torture good?".  The debate is difficult when it is framed as awkwardly as it is.  

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 07:40:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How could we EVER know? (0.00 / 0)

By definition, everything the CIA does is in secret, and that's as it should be. What we CAN do is watch what people claim to believe and what they are willing to state. Obama has NEVER defended torture. He's defended the torturERS, but not the act itself. Or the people who authorized it. The day of accountability will come, there is no statute of limitations for war crimes.

But Obama doesn't believe in this stuff at all, and I'm fairly certain he means what he says. He seems to reach these decisions to set up roadblocks as either a last resort or stall tactic while he decides how to proceed. Or as a method to prevent a group from setting a serious legal precedent or prevent international prosecution of these people. That's the most irritating thing about Cheney's tour. Obama could have his ass investigated, arrested and convicted in about five minutes by just issuing a statement saying he wouldn't actively fight it. Let alone if he actually hired a prosecutor.

My personal hope is that Cheney will piss off the wrong person (Colin Powell) to the point that the Bushie loyalty finally splinters. Were Colin Powell to say what he knows, all hell would break loose.

BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I now think his decision to withhold the photos related directly to today's CIA decision that the Cheney documents cannot be released because they relate to an ongoing lawsuit. Had he gone forward, he would have been instantly accused of further cherrypicking, and that would have strengthened Cheney's hand quite a bit.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:49:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Go check out the story at the Daily Beast. (2.00 / 2)

Puts Cheney right in the middle of things.  Additionally, ABC News is reporting that two people (presumably the same two in the Daily Beast article) today testified before a Senate committee to the same thing.

Lawrence Wilkerson (Powell's COS) has interesting things to say, too.  Stuff is coming out fast and furious now.  I hope the DOJ can keep up.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 15:19:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You say Sullivan is great and here's one of the reasons why. (2.00 / 3)

He isn't afraid to admit when he may be wrong.

From today's postings:

My immediate shock that Obama would be willing to suppress evidence of prisoner abuse, torture and even murder - stunningly widespread in the Bush-led military - somewhat distracted me from the politics of this. That is often a mistake with Obama who both takes his own responsibilities as commander-in-chief seriously and always appears to be playing a longer game than his opponents.

But this is a blog, written in real time, so allow me some secondary thoughts after a night to sleep on it. In the cold light of morning, it doesn't seem quite so offensive. In fact, the rope-a-dope this time might be on us.

The critical point of releasing the photos is that they will help break through to the American public just how endemic the abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush was...

The pro-torture right will say this call is obvious. It isn't. It's very hard. When you have inherited a policy of war crimes, and you are still fighting a war, balancing accountability with responsibility is tough. I think, having made our point, we should cut the man some slack on this. What matters is holding those who destroyed America's moral standing responsible. That is a struggle for patriots to engage, a Truth Commission to study, and the attorney-general to pursue, while allowing the president to do his job as commander-in-chief.

Fine. Rope-A-Dope us. But let us not let the responsible parties get away with torture, abuse and murder. And let us play a smart and relentless long game as well.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 10:35:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's interesting, (2.00 / 2)

because my outrage meter has gone way down today, too.  I think I may also have let others' outrage fuel some of my own.

I don't think it's the decision not to release the photos that people disagree with; it is what they think is behind the decision.  Is this a signal that Obama will not allow prosecutions or a truth commission?  Does this mean Obama is allowing such abuses to continue?  Does he really have the best interests of the troops in mind?  Has he been corrupted by power and is covering for his predecessor?

Whatever reason(s) someone assigns to the decision seems to have a direct correlation to the amount of outrage this generated.  I heard Jonathan Turley was really outraged last night on Rachel's show.  I didn't bother to watch 'cause I could already hear it.  Turley is convinced (rightly or wrongly) that Obama will not allow prosecutions.  So, his outrage meter hit explode.  He's a smart guy and he may be right.  Despite evidence to the contrary I'm still hopeful that Holder will do the right thing.

I'm not outraged anymore.  Don't know if I really was.  Disappointed, yes, but I really don't think this was an easy decision and I can understand why he made it.  I just sincerely hope that these pictures end up as evidence at some trials.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:48:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sullivan ALWAYS keeps himself honest. (2.00 / 1)

At NO point will that guy refuse to allow a dissenting opinion or shy away from criticism. He's an ideologue, most assuredly, but he's not afraid of being proven wrong. What a different place the world would be if there were more like him.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 13:53:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I feel the same ratcheting down... (2.00 / 1)

...as you and HappyinVT. But I have one caveat.

By some bizarre coincidence I'm reading about the Cuban Missile Crisis today and about the 'irresistible' pressures put on Kennedy for an early pre emptive strike and invasion of Cuba.

Of course, these pressures were patently not irresistible in retrospect. But it got me thinking how, from WWII onward, every Democratic president has been scuppered, one way or another, by the military.

Kennedy is the most moot, because the Bay of Pigs debacle and its connection to his assassination is as yet unproven. But with Carter and Clinton (Tehran rescue Plan and DADT), there are clear moments when the military show who is in control. In retrospect, I think that Clinton finally overturned that balance of power (with British help) by getting Cohen eventually to signal the use of land forces in Kosovo, a nod which eventually forced Milosevic to capitulate...

The nub of this is, whatever my off-beam historical associations, is that what filled me with foreboding is the interaction of a Democratic President with the US military.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not 'military industrial complex' obsessive. But I also know the one remaining key difference between Europeans and Americans is your respect for the military. I understand it. For the last 150 years, war has actually been good for America. There has not been a military conflict on American soil, and despite Vietnam and Iraq, the overwhelming military experience was both morally liberating, and economically advantageous.

Here, on this war riven continent of Europe, military men and women, though respect are no longer national icons. Too many lives have been lost, too many liberties too.  

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 14:22:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are theese photo's availible to congress? (2.00 / 3)

  I tend to agree with vcalzone. If and when Justice decides to prosecute, theese photo's will be evidence I would suppose. It would seem that if Leahy ever gets somthing going in the senate, theese photos would proably be available to them in some fashion.

 President Obama has said quite forcefully on a number of ocassions that we will not torture, and has been quite specific on what we will allow our personel to do.I also think that if he openly endorsed trials and prosecutions it would so disrupt our government that he would not accomplish anything else he has on our agenda.

I favor gathering evidencevia a special prosecutor or independent counsel that would allow us to make a decision about prosecution somtime in the future. And while disappointed that hasn't happened I see no advantage to releasing theese photo's.

---

by: creamer @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 11:17:19 AM CDT

I think what we're gettting here (2.00 / 1)

is enough rope to hang folks with.

By opposing Cheney's call to release memos, Obama is playing a fun little game. Cheney figures that Obama will oppose what he wants, then if he relents, then Cheney feels that he's "won".

Unless of course, all the memos are released. Transparency ensues. Not just the cherry picked memos, but a more complete picture.

It is Cheney's worst nightmare. Worse than his office authorizing waterboarding to 'build' a connection between Iraq and 9/11. It puts the full light of exposure on the previous Administration, and it then impels Congress to get involved.

It boils down to President Obama is playing the game in Washington a bit closer to the chest than folks may like, but he's playing some potential hardball, and if he can swipe Cheney off the board--and his adherents in DoJ and the CIA at the same time--then he gains a huge amount of political dap from the CIA, the FBI, and gets to sweep the DoJ clear of potential time bombs.

Cheney's biggest fear is if he gets what he "wants". He may get that, good and hard.  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 16:31:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are misjudging Cheney. (0.00 / 0)

Cheney will go to his grave believing in the moral and strategic brilliance and bravery he displayed. He doesn't just think those actions were justified under the circumstances, he thinks they were ideas that will lead historians to conclude that he was one of our great historical figures.

It's not hard. Every despot brought down throughout history believes this. Cheney never committed the acts those people did, but they share a common personality.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:02:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that is what he would like folks to believe (0.00 / 0)

But if he actually believed any of that, he wouldn't be doing his damndest to shed blame and cast doubt.

Cheney is neither as smart nor as right as he would like folks to think he is. But, he's got to play that game, or he, and possibly his daughter, and a lot of folks around him are going to go down kicking and screaming.  

---

by: hubiestubert @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:14:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Nono (2.00 / 1)

He BELIEVES what he's saying. His current mindset is that Obama is just playing politics, and that it is up to him to defend what he thinks is right. I used to think it was about saving his own ass, too. But if that were true, he wouldn't continue to provoke Obama, because that only makes it MORE likely for Obama to release damning information.

No, Cheney is a true believer, which is why he was and is so awful. A Nixon acolyte whose only lesson from Watergate was to always cover your tracks. The more we learn about Cheney, the more we will realize that he doesn't have a political bone in his body. He's just a horrible, bitter man with no understanding of what humanity is.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 23:42:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It completely slipped my mind....BUT (2.00 / 3)

This whole thing about the photos is an ongoing legal battle in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.  The Appeals Court has upheld the lower court's ruling that the government MUST release the photos under FOIA.  Obama knows this very well, and he was originally stepping back from the government pursuing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which odds on, will not take the case meaning that the ruling will stand and the photos will have to be released.  Obama is keenly aware of the likelihood that the photos will be released because of the court findings, and yet, he still said that he is siding with the commanders on the ground.  Shrewd move, counselor.

The Pentagon is currently compelled by a court order to turn 22 photos over to the ACLU, which sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act for their release in 2003. The Pentagon lost in district court and lost again on appeal; earlier this year Pentagon lawyers decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court and struck a deal with the ACLU. The government has no say at this point in whether or not those photos get released-either the FOIA compels their release or it doesn't, and it's up to a court to decide that question. All Obama did yesterday was authorize the Pentagon to ask the Supreme Court to take the case. The Court might take the case or it might not. And if it does, it will almost certainly uphold the decisions of the district and appeals courts and order the photos to be released.

EmPHAsis mine. ;)

Interesting commentary on the whole issue here.

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 19:55:16 PM CDT

I think that excellent point has gotten lost in the (2.00 / 4)

hysteria over the situation.

Also, for some reason I thought the number of pictures was somewhere in the hundreds.  I saw 29 on another site and your quote says 22.  That's it?!  All this teeth-gnashing and "let's impeach Obama" crap has been over less than 30 pictures?!  I want some of that outrage that I had last night back so I can use it again for something else.

Don't get me wrong, though.  I don't mean to diminish what the pictures show; I'm just floored that there are significantly less than I thought because I really believed that it showed hundreds of US military personnel systematically torturing all the men, women, and children they could find.  Something like that may have happened but, apparently, that isn't what these pictures will show.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 20:09:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hear ya. (2.00 / 2)

I want those 10 minutes of my energy back.  I think that the Left is still suffering from some sort of form of PTSD from the past administration.  We are all a little high strung and hyper vigilant about the executive branch, especially since Cheney thinks that he has power over what happens to our country.  I think Obama is like our collective Chill Pill. ;)

The ripple from one tossed pebble can a tsunami make.

---

by: Michelle @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 20:31:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Left may be suffering from PTSD, (2.00 / 2)

but that isn't the case for all of the concern. Some of us have always doubted the government's credibility and honesty on some issues. I've lived long enough to see almost every administration do something underhanded or illegal. It is good for this country to have people being hyper vigilant. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I will always wonder about hidden motives and agendas when it comes to the government. Obama doesn't get a free pass from me. I'll reserve full judgment on Obama for after he leaves office. Even then, I'll know that I don't really know everything that went on while he was in office.  

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 21:56:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Vigilance is one thing and I'll agree that everyone in (2.00 / 2)

office deserves to have a careful eye kept on him/her.  But, Jesus, sometimes the hypervigilance turns into hyperventilation.  That's what I can do without.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:33:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah that happens often (2.00 / 1)

It's like with the healthcare debate. Diaries going up on MyDD and DailyKos angry because they arrested people at the Finance Committee hearing because they were screaming that single-payer advocates were included on the panel.

Except Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO was there advocating for single-payer.

Of course that fact was lost in the momentary outrage and one wonders why the blogsphere is losing credibility.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 20:54:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you really been paying attention? (2.00 / 1)

"...one wonders why the blogsphere is losing credibility."

The MSM is the one who has been losing credibility. They have been getting exposed over and over again by bloggers.  

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 21:58:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

some of the blogs (0.00 / 0)

are turning into sensationlists like the MSM.

The MSM lost credibility a long time ago, but now the blogsphere is turning into them...badly researched stories written by people with agendas.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 22:49:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You should write a diary about this... (0.00 / 0)

From a legal and veteran's point of view.

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 10:17:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So.... (0.00 / 0)

Wootoff is going on. Anyone who needs or wants to buy anything should keep an eye out, because I've never seen Woot carry anything that wasn't the lowest price available anywhere outside of Black Friday. Picked up a Breville espresso machine earlier for $84.99 with shipping.

---

by: vcalzone @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 23:46:32 PM CDT

Does anyone watch Grey's Anatomy? (2.00 / 1)

I used to be into that show in the states, and I watched some episodes online when I can, but all my friends seemed to be shocked by the season finale. I'm wondering if it was worth the watch.  

---

by: nrafter530 @ Thu May 14, 2009 at 23:53:28 PM CDT

Whatever happened (0.00 / 0)

There is no chance that the finale was more shocking than ER's stabbing.

---

by: vcalzone @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 00:05:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, that falls within parameters... (0.00 / 0)

From one of my favorite webcomics. Period.

---

by: hubiestubert @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 08:09:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

totally. worth. it. (0.00 / 0)

was awesome.

"I spend my days and nights pondering the meaning of life, the state of the universe, and the Home Shopping Network." -- Donald Roller Wilson

---

by: canadian gal @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 21:34:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is such an emotional topic. With a lot of diverging opinion in both camps. (2.00 / 2)

You see that just following this thread, in the progressives and centrist here you see differing opinions.

Today the media is aflame with the thought of a US congress person accusing the CIA of lying. The thought of an agency that trains its employee's to lie, actually lying appears to be more than the pundits can take.

 It would seem that some big media types are seeing big ratings in torture. I wouldn't expect this to go away anytime soon.

---

by: creamer @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 11:39:14 AM CDT

That's why I vainly hoped the whole issue could just go away. (2.00 / 1)

It's like when you have two hours to do five things that are complexly related and someone wants to ask a completely separate question with no easy answer.  The question is a bitch to deal with at any time, but under the circumstances can't it just wait?

In this case, not really.  

sigh

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 14:45:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually I think it can wait (2.00 / 2)

just not for the blogsphere. The only reason this is all really making news is because there's a political drama unfolding between the "liberal gay-loving, bible-bashing, blame-America first woman speaker from San Francisco" and the "tough as nails super patriotic CIA" and the media LOVES it.

---

by: nrafter530 @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 15:14:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This sentence (2.00 / 1)

It would seem that some big media types are seeing big ratings in torture.

almost made me cry because I fear it is all too true.  Woo hoo!  The ratings bonanza of the '08 elections is over and now the 24/7 cable news shows have found the next big thing to bring in viewers and advertising dollars.

Meanwhile, many of these same media types were looking for ratings gold during the run-up to the war.  Americans would be glued to their seats watching shock and awe.

The whole thing makes me sick.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 16:14:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Brit, just because I wanted to be the 100th comment (2.00 / 1)

what the heck in going on over on your side of the pond?!  Seems like your government's got some 'splaining' to do.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 22:46:03 PM CDT