<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?

April 24 2009 at 8:34 PM

  (Login j2saret)

Is that ok, if its ok to be a bigger monster than your foe, then how much bigger before the scumsucking chicken hawks (gus skippy et al) on the board will say enough? Oh I know they'll just stick beans in their ears and continue their barge trip down de-nile.




Jack Bauer Tactics Used In Attempt to Establish Non-Existent Iraq-al Qaida Link
By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
Posted on April 22, 2009, Printed on April 24, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/137881/

Most of the defenses for torture involve some variation on a Jack Bauer fantasy -- to stop the proverbial ticking time-bomb, U.S. officials have to be able to do literally anything to acquire intelligence to save lives.

There are all kinds of problems with this, of course, most notably the fact that "24" is a fictional television program. But as new evidence comes to light about the Bush administration's policies, it's also worth noting that life-saving wasn't always the goal of torture.

The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.

The use of abusive interrogation -- widely considered torture -- as part of Bush's quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge of the interrogation issue told McClatchy, "There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used. The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."

The official added, "Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA ... and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."

That was considered the wrong answer, so senior administration "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information."

This was bolstered by the testimony of Maj. Charles Burney, a former Army psychiatrist, who told Army investigators that interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay were under "pressure" to produce evidence of ties between al Qaida and Iraq.

We know what the Bush administration did. We're starting to get an even better sense of why they did it. As was often the case with these officials, they started with the answer -- the non-existent link between Iraq and al Qaeda -- and worked backwards.

Steve Benen is "blogger in chief" of the popular Washington Monthly online blog, Political Animal. His background includes publishing The Carpetbagger Report, and writing for a variety of publications, including Talking Points Memo, The American Prospect, the Huffington Post, and The Guardian. He has also appeared on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show," Air America Radio's "Sam Seder Show," and XM Radio's "POTUS '08."
© 2009 Washington Monthly All rights reserved.
View this story online at:http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/137881/

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply


(Login gus-mccrea)

Re: What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?

April 24 2009, 9:28 PM 

Is that ok, if its ok to be a bigger monster than your foe, then how much bigger before the scumsucking chicken hawks (gus skippy et al) on the board will say enough?

   Awfully fat talk, coming from a King-wanna-be with an odd fascination for firing squads.

gus.

 


 
 


(Login j2saret)

Re: What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?

April 24 2009, 9:48 PM 

just trying to communicate with you on the level that seems to appeal to kneejerk wingnut asshole losers. Its worked well so far gus, I sometimes break through the bullshit screen you and yours put out and get a couple of paragraphs of conversation.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

 
 


(Login gus-mccrea)

Re: What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?

April 24 2009, 10:03 PM 

just trying to communicate with you on the level that seems to appeal to kneejerk wingnut asshole losers.

    I think roby should adopt this line of crap as well.  It would cover a multitude of his mental transgressions.

gus.

 


 
 

(Login Avalon99)

Re: What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?

April 24 2009, 10:06 PM 

I think roby should adopt this line of crap as well.  It would cover a multitude of his mental transgressions.

*******************************

What "mental transgressions" are those? 

You are quick on the thoughtless insult.  You do it well.  I bow to the master.

But, what does it really mean?

Jim...


 
 


(Login gus-mccrea)

Re: What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?

April 24 2009, 10:19 PM 


I think roby should adopt this line of crap as well.  It would cover a multitude of his mental transgressions.

*******************************

What "mental transgressions" are those? 

You are quick on the thoughtless insult.  You do it well.  I bow to the master.

But, what does it really mean?

    I was trying to exercise a little descretion, and it wasn't the least bit thoughtless, I read all of roby's posts.  Roby's juvenile profanity is not unlike the general's self-promotions, and dreams of firing squads.  And since the general has managed a fine job of rationalizing his to himself, I was only suggesting that roby give it a try.  Maybe my own transgression is a spontanious fit of wild optimism.

gus.

 

 


 
 
Current Topic - What if you were tortured so Bush/Chaney could "prove a lie"?  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Meet The Members Links

Powered by WebRing®.