Okay, I guess the party is wearing down. A lot of the cool guests have gone on to better events. The lights are starting to come up, and the losers linger over warm watery drinks telling their loser stories of better days when they really were someone. In varying tones of tired alcoholic breath they drone on in your ear about how great they were, but.... In this particular case its Doug Feith doing a lot of revisionist history in his book, "War and Decision." The point he is beligerantly trying to make is that Iraq would have been a huge quick success of democracy if only we left his pick -Chalabi- in charge. "This from a guy who sent our military into Iraq without the right armor, the right force numbers or the right counterinsurgency training."
Check out Maureen Dowd's column for today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/opinion/12dowd.html?ex=1355202000&en=1311744729d1de6e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Violating Federal Court by Destroying Tapes Sign of Nation Divided
The White House has maintained support for whatever needs to be done to bring confessions from detainees in “The War on Terror”. The latest case involves Abu Zubaida and his record interrogation time of 35 seconds due to the use of “water boarding,” a type of torture that convinces the tortured they are going to drown. The detainee is strapped down to a table, the nose and mouth covered with cellophane, water poured down the throat and aspirated into the lungs. The next day (apparently after he recovered) he turned on several terrorists in time to thwart their attacks. In effect saving lives. So, the ends seem to justify the means. Or do they?
Leonard Doyle writing for The Independent in Washington wrote on 12 Dec.2007: “The torture of interrogation has led to a fierce argument among US intelligence agencies and in the armed services. The FBI which is responsible for counter-intelligence in the US adamantly opposes the use of torture as counterproductive and unreliable while top CIA officers continue to defend it as an important tool in their armory against terrorists who do not respect the rules of war. The Armed Services reject all forms of torture on the basis that they are unreliable.”
I think I would say anything to get off that table. Got to agree with the Armed Services on this one.
Then there’s the morality question. Doesn’t the administration, adopting the stance of a Judeo-Christian nation sitting in judgment on the Taliban’s backcountry Islamic way of life have a responsibility to assume the higher ground? After all, Bush invaded Iraq to bring it democracy. (Well, given the dearth of WMD we were promised as proof as Saddam’s commitment to attack Western “democracy” in the form of giving residency to Osama Bin Laden while he planned and carried out his attack on NY twice, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Or something like that. Why are we there again?)
Or, do you take the other position that we should be as brutal as the Taliban? Golden Rule or tit for tat? Efficient crime fighting or thuggish potentially resource wasting tactics?
In a country united behind its leadership in a time of quote-end quote war, it would not have been necessary for the CIA to destroy the tapes of Abu Zubaida’s or other’s interrogations. Nor a Federal court to forbid the Bush adminstration from doing so. I think that act illustrates a deeper more pervasive ill. In a phrase, the continuing polarization of a nation with itself. Keeping us at odds with each other as citizens at the most basic level, and branches of government on the macro level, is the only fruit this administration has born since its inception. And the line in the sand has been Iraq.
TPM
Leonard Doyle writing for The Independent in Washington wrote on 12 Dec.2007: “The torture of interrogation has led to a fierce argument among US intelligence agencies and in the armed services. The FBI which is responsible for counter-intelligence in the US adamantly opposes the use of torture as counterproductive and unreliable while top CIA officers continue to defend it as an important tool in their armory against terrorists who do not respect the rules of war. The Armed Services reject all forms of torture on the basis that they are unreliable.”
I think I would say anything to get off that table. Got to agree with the Armed Services on this one.
Then there’s the morality question. Doesn’t the administration, adopting the stance of a Judeo-Christian nation sitting in judgment on the Taliban’s backcountry Islamic way of life have a responsibility to assume the higher ground? After all, Bush invaded Iraq to bring it democracy. (Well, given the dearth of WMD we were promised as proof as Saddam’s commitment to attack Western “democracy” in the form of giving residency to Osama Bin Laden while he planned and carried out his attack on NY twice, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Or something like that. Why are we there again?)
Or, do you take the other position that we should be as brutal as the Taliban? Golden Rule or tit for tat? Efficient crime fighting or thuggish potentially resource wasting tactics?
In a country united behind its leadership in a time of quote-end quote war, it would not have been necessary for the CIA to destroy the tapes of Abu Zubaida’s or other’s interrogations. Nor a Federal court to forbid the Bush adminstration from doing so. I think that act illustrates a deeper more pervasive ill. In a phrase, the continuing polarization of a nation with itself. Keeping us at odds with each other as citizens at the most basic level, and branches of government on the macro level, is the only fruit this administration has born since its inception. And the line in the sand has been Iraq.
TPM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)