Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WSJ op-ed: "The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country" (updated)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:38 PM
Original message
WSJ op-ed: "The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country" (updated)
Edited on Fri Dec-19-08 01:51 PM by ProSense
REVIEW & OUTLOOK DECEMBER 19, 2008

The Real 'Torture' Disgrace

The left gears up to prosecute Bush officials for protecting the country.

The release of Carl Levin's report on the Bush Administration's alleged "torture" policies was a formality: The Senator's conclusions were politically predetermined long ago. Still, the credulity and acclaim that has greeted this agitprop is embarrassing, even by Washington standards.

According to the familiar "torture narrative" that Mr. Levin sanctifies, President Bush and senior officials sanctioned detainee abuse, first by refusing to accord al Qaeda members Geneva Convention rights, and second by conspiring to rewrite the legal definition of torture. The new practices were then imposed on military leaders and spread through the chain of command. Therefore, Mr. Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their deputies are morally -- and legally -- responsible for all prisoner abuse since 9/11, not least Abu Ghraib.

Nearly every element of this narrative is dishonest. As officials testified during Mr. Levin's hearings and according to documents in his possession, senior officials were responding to requests from the CIA and other commanders in the field. The flow was bottom up, not top down. Those commanders were seeking guidance on what kind of interrogation was permissible as they tried to elicit information from enemies who want to murder civilians. At the time, no less than Barack Obama's Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, was saying that terrorists didn't qualify for Geneva protections.

<...>

As for Mr. Levin, his real purpose is to lay the groundwork for war-crimes prosecutions of Bush officials like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Jim Haynes who acted in good faith to keep the country safe within the confines of the law. Messrs. Obama and Holder would be foolish to spend their political capital on revenge, but Mr. Levin is demanding an "independent" commission to further politicize the issue and smear decent public servants.

more

(emphasis added)

Wait, "smear decent public servants" who torture? OMG!

U.S. Senator proposing an investigation of Bush administration officials?

NYT calls for prosecutor to "consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon"

Update:

Duncan Hunter: Torture Provided ‘Enormously Valuable Information That Saved American Lives’

Last night on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) ardently defended the Bush administration’s torture policy, echoing Vice President Cheney’s claim that torture yielded life-saving results. He pointed to waterboarding Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was remarkably successful. “After this procedure,” Duncan said, “we got enormously valuable information that saved American lives.” Watch it:

(http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/19/hunter-torture-works/">Hunter: Torture provided 'enormously valuable information that saved American lives')

Despite Hunter’s claims, the torture of Abu Zubayda and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed provided next to zero useful intelligence, as a recent Vanity Fair article revealed:

But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total f*cking bullsh*t.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

In fact, the article explained that the “intelligence” gleaned from Zubayda was false information about non-existent links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein — information the Bush administration seized on as a major part of its argument for the Iraq war, as a former Pentagon analyst explained:

<...>

Rather than “saving American lives,” torturing Zubayda provided false intelligence that led to a catastrophic war that killed more than 4,000 Americans. What’s more, as former interrogators and military officials have said, torture has directly led to the deaths of thousands of American soldiers through its use as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda and insurgents.

UPDATE David Rose, the author of the Vanity Fair article, told Rachel Maddow last night that the counterrorism experts he interviewed "are unanimous in saying they got much better information from regular, legal, constitutional methods, rapport building, developing a relationship with the source. That way, they got really good information."

It's spin time to cover for war criminals, and the Repubs are out in force admitting to torture.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. I believe Scott Ritter would disagree that the flow was bottom up
Ever since hearing him speak on the WMD issue, I am convinced these bastards in the WH are criminals and need to be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
navarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. who the fuck wrote this piece of shit
fuck them in the eyesocket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. It's hard to tell if the piece is a WSJ editorial or an op-ed by someone
Cowards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Probably Rupert. It's his speed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bwaahaa. This is an Onion piece, right? Oh wait. I forgot WSJ is now a Rupert Murdoch rag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mugweed Donating Member (939 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Protecting what???
Everything that asshole did just made him more of the posterboy for Al Qada recruiting.

Right wingers live in such a bizarro alterna-world!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. lol they lost n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. Too much $hit to address This W$J article is Bull $hit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-19-08 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yeah thats what he did alright,,, what the hell is he smokin?!!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eppur_se_muova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-20-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oh, wow -- just savor the delusion in this one.
This is primo right-wing reality-denying of the first water. The pure quill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC