Oh Boy, Another One ...

Yesterday, we told you about Jon "Let'em Go" Meacham, and his "Hear/Speak/See No Evil" approach to holding the Bush Grindhouse accountable for their war crimes.



Today, it is, none other, than Thomas "My Head Is Flat", "Suck On This" Friedman, proud creator of the infamous "Friedman Unit".

The president’s decision to expose but not prosecute those responsible for this policy is surely unsatisfying; some of this abuse involved sheer brutality that had nothing to do with clear and present dangers. Then why justify the Obama compromise? Two reasons: the first is that because justice taken to its logical end here would likely require bringing George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and other senior officials to trial, which would rip our country apart; and the other is that Al Qaeda truly was a unique enemy, and the post-9/11 era a deeply confounding war in a variety of ways.

[Snip]

First, Al Qaeda was undeterred by normal means. Al Qaeda’s weapon of choice was suicide. Al Qaeda operatives were ready to kill themselves — as they did on 9/11, and before that against U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen — long before we could ever threaten to kill them. We could deter the Russians because they loved their children more than they hated us; they did not want to die. The Al Qaeda operatives hated us more than they loved their own children. They glorified martyrdom and left families behind.

We think Mister My Head Is Flat shoots down his own argument, right here.

"Al Qaeda’s weapon of choice was suicide. Al Qaeda operatives were ready to kill themselves ..."

Since Al Qaeda was "undeterred by normal means", fearless of suicide and "ready to kill themselves", why then, would we want to play into all that with torture?

It would seem to be a wiser choice, to do proper interrogations with them, dispelling the myths, and building rapports that trained interrogators say produce better results.

Sorry there Mister Suck-On-This, you don't get to pass Go, and collect your, apparently much-needed, $200.

And, can we start tearing down this meme, that holding criminals accountable for their crimes will "tear the country apart."

Who says so? ... When has this happened, what factual documentation do these people have?

Ford screwed the pooch with pardoning Nixon for the same rationale, choking off the display of democracy, with having the Congress impeach the sitting, criminal President.

So, why is it that, in "enforcing the laws that are on the books" (a favorite Freak Show lament, when it comes to gun control, and immigration), will "tear the country apart", rather than stand out, showing our fellow citizens, and the world, that we are big enough, and strong enough, to take care of our business, orderly, and with respect.

I expect this will get a lot more voicing, as we crawl towards the War Crime Trials, awaiting, hopefully, not in the distant future.

So, Suck On That, there Mr. Friedman Unit.


Bonus "My Head Is Flat" Riffs

Barrett Brown: Thomas Friedman’s Five Worst Predictions

Delawareliberal: Tom Friedman and Me - Or - Calling Friedman out Near the Coat Check at Sardi’s

Wonkette: Thomas Friedman Assaulted By Rhode Island Pies!

Thomas Freidman, Clearly, Is Eating Lead-Painted Toys From His Flat World Economy!

Happy 5th Anniversary of "Suck On This" Day!

Jon Meacham, Phone Home

This goes, far, far beyond merely Jon Meacham's head stuffed up, deep, in his butt.

Nor, is it drinking gallons-and-gallons of the Freak Show Kool Aid.

The jig is up ...



He is an intergalactic alien, so benighted in the ways and customs of our country, that he, in his "Editor's Desk' column, in 'Newsweek', he blows his cover;

So we do not want that. Nor, I think, do we want to open criminal investigations into those who participated in brutal interrogation methods. And to pursue criminal charges against officials at the highest levels—including the former president and the former vice president—would set a terrible precedent. (The presidential historian Michael Beschloss suggests that the closest parallel to a president authorizing a probe of his predecessor can be found in the 1920s, when Calvin Coolidge appointed special prosecutors to investigate Warren Harding's role in the Teapot Dome scandal.) That is not to say presidents and vice presidents are always above the law; there could be instances in which such a prosecution is appropriate, but based on what we know, this is not such a case.

[snip]

The idea that our only options are to move on completely or to prosecute is a classic false choice.

Dig that?

"That is not to say presidents and vice presidents are always above the law; there could be instances in which such a prosecution is appropriate, but based on what we know, this is not such a case."

No, the "false choice" here, the false meme here is that, "based on what we know", based on lies, and fabricated legal advice to package those lies, that The Bush Grindhouse "kept us safe"

That the policy of torture "kept us safe"

Just the other day (and who thunk that Meacham would top this), we had Stumblin' Bumblin' John McCain advocating that, like Watergate, the Bush Grindhouse should get a pass.

Glenn Greenwald tears Meacham a new one, in Jon Meacham's subservient defense of monarchical power

And, the other day, his editor, Joan Walsh, of Salon, attempted to bang heads together, perhaps, hopefully, to dislodge that meme of "torture is okay".

I don't know what planet you are from Jon Meacham, but when you go back there, you can tell your people that, here, on Earth, torture is a crime and those responsible for it must be held accountable.

Either that, or pull your head out of your ass.

Jesus ....


Bonus Riffs

For The Want Of A Lie ...

Krugman: Reclaiming America’s Soul

The Narrative Continues To Build!

The Narrative Continues To Build!

"If you build it, they will come (to justice, hopefully)"

Yes, it's a bone we have latched on to, but one that continues to deny being buried.

More, and more, it is being obvious, to many, that the dots are being connected on how The Bush Grindhouse lied us into the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and, as an instrument of their odious, and evil tools, one of the items they used to sell it, was the implementation of their Torture Policy.



Frank Rich, today, with a monster column, weighs in, on-point, and on-the-money.

The Banality of Bush White House Evil

Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that it was carried out in scenarios that had no resemblance to “24”; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks.

[Snip]

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

It is becoming clearer, that Cheney, some other Bush Grindhouse cronies, the Flying Monkeys (and George Will, who on Little Georgie's show this morning, was outraged that a new administration would go after a previous administration), are being blatantly obtuse, that they are looking to frame this as a policy witch hunt, versus the illegal war crimes that it is.

More, from that growing chain of dots ...

John Cole, at Balloon Juice, along with seconding Rich's column, delves into another can-of-worms that will, at some point, come to light;

BTW, something I was wondering. Didn’t one of the detainees we tortured claim to have been injected with drugs. Was that Padilla? Has that ever been verified? Were there any memos mentioning using pharmaceuticals?

Kevin Hayden, on American Street;

The mainstream media finally has gotten it right: the real reason for the torture was not national security, but to sell an unnecessary, immoral and illegal war in Iraq.

[Snip]

So in addition to the torture, we’ve killed a couple hundred thousand Iraqis, put all future US POWs at greater risk of being tortured, and Halliburton, Exxon, Blackwater and other companies run by Bush/Cheney cronies have been reaping the blood money from it all.

Of course the perps are busily denying it all. That’s what perps do. They know they’ll lose in a courtroom. Their best chance is to appeal to the court of public opinion to avoid the courtroom process completely.

They deserve to fail and to be adequately punished for their war crimes, if justice means anything.

Ron Beasley, at Newshoggers;

This makes the crime of torture even more heinous. Torture to get a false confession to justify a war that killed thousands of American soldiers and tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Sorry Mr Broder, if these crimes are not investigated and and the guilty held accountable the American people will also be just as guilty. If President Obama truly wants to improve the US standing in the world it will take more than talk about how we won't do it again. As it stands now the US is in no position to be critical of even the worst of the world regimes. There is only one way that can change. And by the way Mr Broder that's not called vengeance it's called justice.

Let the narrative continue to build.

Yes, let's follow Cheney's call to release more of the documents.

If it wasn't so seriously evil, and atrocious, it is almost ironic that Cheney wants defend his war crimes by cherry-picking from the torture memos and reports, the very ones, initially, made-to-order, "Here the info you wanted", tell-us-what-you-want-to-hear "legal" advice.

Despite the hue-and-cry, including that from the Obama White House, the only way this should end is with a thorough, independent investigation, and let the chips fall where the may.

It that leads to prosecution, and charges against acquiescing Democrats, so be it.

As Frank Rich ended his column today;

"What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation’s commitment to the rule of law."


Bonus Links

Krugman: Reclaiming America’s Soul

For The Want Of A Lie ...

Krugman: Reclaiming America’s Soul

Well, he is a Nobel Prize winner, and he's been more on-the-money about the economy, that he has not, and, today, he weighs in on pursuing The Bush Grindhouse, for their War Crimes.



And, it just so happened, that Paul Krugman's column today, shared the pages with, yet another, yet another, "My Sister/My Daughter" from President Obama;

Meeting with the Democratic leadership on Wednesday night, Mr. Obama said a special inquiry would steal time and energy from his policy agenda, and could mushroom into a wider distraction looking back at the Bush years, people briefed on the discussion said. Mr. Obama, they said, repeated much the same message on Thursday at a bipartisan meeting with Congressional leaders.

So, it stands, starkly, in contrast to Krugman's position, in "Reclaiming America’s Soul";

What about the argument that investigating the Bush administration’s abuses will impede efforts to deal with the crises of today? Even if that were true — even if truth and justice came at a high price — that would arguably be a price we must pay: laws aren’t supposed to be enforced only when convenient. But is there any real reason to believe that the nation would pay a high price for accountability?

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

[Snip]

Some of them probably just don’t want an ugly scene; my guess is that the president, who clearly prefers visions of uplift to confrontation, is in that group. But the ugliness is already there, and pretending it isn’t won’t make it go away

Others, I suspect, would rather not revisit those years because they don’t want to be reminded of their own sins of omission.

[Snip]

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

Once again, as it has been done most of this week, especially by the pro-torturers, this is a matter of obligation.

It doesn't matter if his "policy agenda" takes a backseat, or that it will be a "distraction".

We are, as a country, legally, and morally, bound to the treaties we signed, to investigate (and prosecute, if necessary) War Crimes.

As Krugman notes, it's out there, not just here, but all over the world, and all eyes are on us, to see what we are doing to do.

Yeah, it's always easier, and better, when it is some other country's leaders that are the War Criminals.

The fact that we have War Criminals, that they are Americans, doesn't mitigate the responsibility.



Yesterday, we posted how, as more of this Bush Grindhouse Torture business comes out, the more it shows that it was designed to give cover to the lies, of invading and occupying Iraq.

Digby, over on her Hullabaloo, has more on that end of it;

Ron Suskind on Maddow yesterday:

And what‘s fascinating here, if you run the timeline side by side, you see, really, for the first time from that report that the key thing being sent down in terms of the request by the policymakers, by the White House, is find a link between Saddam and al Qaeda so that we essentially can link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks and then march into Iraq with the anger of 9/11 behind us. That was the goal and that was being passed down as the directive.

It‘s, you know, it‘s often called the requirement inside the CIA for both agents with their sources and interrogators with their captives. “Here‘s what we‘re interested in, here‘s what we, the duly elected leaders, want to hear about. Tell us what you can find.”

What‘s fascinating, in the Senate report, is finally clear confirmation that that specific thing was driving many of the activities, and mind you, the frustration inside of the White House that was actually driving action. The quote, in fact, inside of the Senate report from a major said that as frustration built inside of the White House, that there was no link that was established—because the CIA told the White House from the very start there is no Saddam/al Qaeda link. We checked it out. We did every which way. Sorry.

The White House simply wouldn‘t take no for an answer and it went with another method. Torture was the method. “Get me a confession, I don‘t care how you do it.” And that bled all the way through the government, both on the CIA side and the Army side. It‘s extraordinary.

Mind you, Rachel, this is important. This is not about an impetus to foil an upcoming potential al Qaeda attacks. The impetus here is largely political diplomatic. The White House had a political diplomatic problem. It wanted it solved in the run-up to the war.

And mind you, and I think the data will show this—after the invasion, when it becomes clear in the summer, just a few months after in 2003, that there are no WMD in Iraq. That‘s the summer of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame—my goodness, there are no WMD. Now, the White House is being hit with a charge that they took us to war under false pretenses. That‘s when the frustration is acute.

My question, the question for investigators now: Is how many of these interrogations were driven specifically by a desire to come up with the Saddam/al Qaeda link? It‘s essentially rivers coming together.

This isn't about policy differences, or ideology, it's about living up to the principles of this country.

Crimes were committed, War Crimes, and they need to be investigated, and prosecuted, as warranted.

It's as simple as that.


Bonus Links

Steve Hynd: Torture's Poisoned Chalice

Dan Balz: Confronting the Bush Legacy, Reluctantly

Joe Sudbay (DC): It's not "if" there will be a torture investigation in Congress, it's how and when it happens

MediaMatters: Conservative media claim prosecution of Bush administration officials will turn U.S. into "banana republic"

Glenn Greenwald: Three key rules of media behavior shape their discussions of "the 'torture' debate"