The Washington Post is reporting that the torture ofhigh-value captive, Abu Zubaida produced nothing but false leads — in direct contradiction of suggestions by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who endorsed the torture program and use of waterboarding. Moreover, the report indicates that the Administration quickly learned that Zubaida was not the high-profile, highly placed Al Qaeda operative that they told the public. I discussed the latest developments on this segment of Countdown.
The greatest irony is that the only useful information came before the Bush Administration tortured the suspect. No plot was foiled as suggested by the torture and Zubaida was not as President George W. Bush had publicly described him, “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations.” It turns out that Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda,
The Bush torture program is a wonderful example of not just the time-proven junk that comes from torture, but also the value of legal process as a way to acquiring legitimate information in legitimate ways. Putting aside the obvious immorality of the program, the reports show how we tortured people for little more advantage than the visceral and political benefits of “getting tough on terrorism.” It turns out that we sold our collective soul pretty cheap in craeting this torture program. The question is now whether Obama will continue to buy into the same cover-up by continuing to block a special counsel.
For the full story, click here.
SC&A:
I would like to see some examples of left wing bigotry. In my opinion the left dose not engage in patent bigotry. They engage more in pat the child on the head bigotry and they do it with more than just blacks. I actually dont think you can call it bigotry it is more like asymmetrical paternalism, namely the state makes suggestions for how an individual should act. The we know what is good for you type of thing.
One more thing, if you are going to argue in here you better make sure all of your arguments are good ones and that you have all of your facts straight. I think you had a good example of how with your bomb Berlin in 1939 argument/fiasco. I dont think anyone on this site would argue that Hitler coming to power was a good thing but it really wasnt our fight at that point as Mespo pointed out and technologically infeasible as Rafflaw explained.
As far a Rwanda and Darfur, what are you going to do? Invade a soverign nation? Anyway our military is stretched pretty thin as it is because of certain missteps in the middle east. The other problem is which side do you help? We have screwed that pooch so many times the state department must have pooch screw fatigue.
SC&A:
Having systematically dismantled your arguments to this point, I will just not waste the time knocking your last peg from its rather loose mooring, preferring to let others decide whether or not this institutional racism assertion is like all your others. I do however note one statement from your comment, “…though I submit that would not change your affinity for the bigots and racists.” In reply, I can only say that, in truth, I ‘m not really that enamored of you.
“The only institutional racism I see is from the right”.
How is the left any less bigoted than the right? There are a plethora of examples of equally vicious bigotry on the left. There are legions of examples. Ask, and you shall receive.
Also, referencing Iraq is interesting- we went to war there because Bill Clinton told the truth about Iraq. See this:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
Finally, why are you deliberately misrepresenting my remarks on institutionalized racism and bigotry? Do you not see that kind of institutionalized hate in the Arab world? Are you oblivious to it?
If that is the case, I can provide you with all kinds of examples, though I submit that would not change your affinity for the bigots and racists.
SC&A:
Well at least you avoided criticism of the cake recipe, but then again, it would have made your reply more sensible. No one’s condoning 50 million (?) deaths but the point is that we had no idea it was occurring until it was almost over, and Britain knew nothing more than we did. If you’re asking whether in a perfect world we would attack to stop 50 million deaths we knew were going to happen, I would say duh, yeah, but that is about as likely an occurrence as finding a terrorist with a hidden ticking time bomb. We never have certainty about the future, and thinking people don’t act based on what could possibly happen (see contra, Bush/Cheney: Iraq War Fiasco).
The only institutional racism I see is from the right, and to prove it one need only take a gander at the tape from any McCain/Palin election rally, or just ask a member of an affected minority if they fear more from the right or the left. Your hypothetical debates about changing the course of history to suit your morals reminds of the famous SNL skit where Steve Martin asks the question, “What if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo?” Most people laughed at him, too.
Like you, I take no offense at insults from blathering lesser thinkers. I had a good laugh when you remarked that you thought before you spoke. Clearly, there is very little of that assertion in evidence.
After 50 million deaths (and at minimum, an equal number of deaths in the still leftist revered Soviet Union), only an idiot and a pompous ass would believe that legal considerations when it comes to genocide take precedence over moral considerations (Is that because blacks and Jews make for acceptable victims as far as the left is concerned?). That the US and other western nations have done nothing to address the atrocities in Africa is shameful- that the left has dome little or nothing is even more outrageous.
You also failed to address the institutionalized racism, hate and bigotry of the latest darlings of the left, many of whom are in the Muslim world. Of course, I can’t blame you for avoiding the issue. After all, what kind of defense can be made for those promising to ‘finish what Hitler started’. What can you say- that we have no idea what institutionalized racism, hate and bigotry can lead to?
You are a bigot wrapped in camouflage. Like other bigots, you attempt to wrap yourself in self serving statements, phony facts and contrived realities.
The good news is that like them, you are amusing- and irrelevant.
Mespo,
thanks, my Dad flew B-17’s and B-24’s out of Italy during WWII so I have done a little bit of reading on the subject. We must also remember that even Britain didn’t have the ability to do that kind of massive bombing at that date.
rafflaw:
Good show on the military capability question. I forgot about the limited range of our aging B-12 bombers in 1939. The Flying Fortresess (B-17) and Bolos (B-18) didn’t have much better range either so we were logistically precluded from air assault.
SC&A:
“I suppose your remarks explain the rationale for not intervening in Rwanda, Darfur, Sierra Leonne, Congo and so on and I suppose the institutionalized racism, bigotry and hate of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah are no reason for concern either.
…
I know from your previous responses that personal insults don’t bother you (I shall only respond in kind).”
****************
I never take offense to personal insults gurgling from neo-cons. It’s like blaming mosquitoes for being annoying. What I do take offense to is your obstinate persistence in refusing to read. I said we had no legal standing to attack since we were not attacked first, AND THEN I SAID (now here’s the important part), “we had no inkling of any atrocities being committed against Jews, or gays, or gypsies et als, and thus had no humanitarian grounds to intervene.” The latter part would cover your supposed counter-examples in Rwanda, Darfur et als, where such humanitarian grounds do exist. Like the President, I prefer to think before I speak. You on the other hand prefer to speak before you read and comprehend. That my dear man is the biggest insult of all–unfortunately it is an insult to one’s self.
I suppose the next round will bring your “thoughtful” rebuttal to the chocolate cake recipe I just provided in this comment.
SC&A,
What world are you living in? You make the ridiculous claim that “… Jews and blacks have a lot in common- they are reviled by the leftists”. Have you seen the voting records of the Jewish voters and the Black voters for the last 30 or 40 years(or longer)? They have been strong backers of and major partners with the left.
“We,as in the United States, had no legal standing to bomb Berlin or anyone else on September 10. 1939.”
Point taken.
Would Britain have been in the right had they bombed Berlin? There were those who proposed doing just that. Or was the death of up to 50 million souls a sad but acceptable outcome?
I suppose your remarks explain the rationale for not intervening in Rwanda, Darfur, Sierra Leonne, Congo and so on and I suppose the institutionalized racism, bigotry and hate of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah are no reason for concern either. After all, how can we predict the outcome of what decades long espousing and teaching of ugly anti Jewish sentiment in schools, in media and pulpit might be? What harm might come from teaching children that ‘We’ll finish what Hitler started’ is a perfectly acceptable form of political expression?
Then again, Jews and blacks have a lot in common- they are reviled by the leftists (protest and insert ‘I’m a Jew or some of my best friends are Jews or blacks’ here).
I know from your previous responses that personal insults don’t bother you (I shall only respond in kind).
Perhaps another ‘pivot and attack’ approach might work better for you.
Well said Mespo. I have one question for SC&A. How did Dershowitz become an expert on torture? Besides, even if the Pope said it wasn’t immoral to torture people, the law is still the law. If Dershowitz and you want to change the law, get to work. Until that time, the law of the land and of the world is that torture is illegal and immoral.
As to your fanciful question about bombing Berlin in 1939 that Mespo properly disposed of, it is doubtful that we would have had the ability to bomb them at that time. Our Army Air Corp. did not have the capability to make a non-stop bombing run from the US and we did not have the air bases in England at that time.
SC&A:
“I do find it interesting that you did not answer my question- “I am curious- is anyone making the argument that we ought NOT have bombed Berlin on Sept 10 1939?”
************
The short answer is “no.” We,as in the United States, had no legal standing to bomb Berlin or anyone else on September 10. 1939. We certainly had not been attacked by Germany and no treaty I am aware of required our participation in any war in defense of Poland, as opposed to the British who had already signed the Polish-British Common Defence Pact or the French who had also signed a guarantee with Poland to secure her borders. In addition, we had no inkling of any atrocities being committed against Jews, or gays, or gypsies et als, and thus had no humanitarian grounds to intervene. As you must know but can never admit, we likewise had not the benefit of hindsight nor could we have projected what was to happen in the future. However, I suspect you neo-con supermen who feel obliged to resort to torture to satisfy your juvenile frustrations at not getting the bogeyman, surely must likewise be able to forecast the future with utmost accuracy too.
For every argument that torture does not work, there is another that says it does. To argue that torture has to be 100% effective all the time is absurd.
See Dershowitz for the case for limited use of torture.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/17/60minutes/main324751.shtml
I do find it interesting that you did not answer my question- “I am curious- is anyone making the argument that we ought NOT have bombed Berlin on Sept 10 1939?”
As for the effective use of torture, the Soviets and other communist regimes used torture very effectively.
I would be most grateful if you might answer the question I posed.
SC&A:
“As for torture not working, that is a ludicrous assertion. Torture may not work all the time but there is no question that it has it’s place (even noted liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz makes that argument).”
**************
Prove it. Appeals to authority do not count.
I am curious- is anyone making the argument that we ought NOT have bombed Berlin on Sept 10 1939?
As for torture not working, that is a ludicrous assertion. Torture may not work all the time but there is no question that it has it’s place (even noted liberal jurist Alan Dershowitz makes that argument).
There is a difference between torture used as a political tool and torture employed as a tool to extract information from ‘ticking bombs’.
Mike-
While I appreciate your editorial opinions, perhaps you might be able to make a more substantive argument in addressing the points I raised.
Simply making an assertion or ad hominum does not make your arguments relevant.
Jill:
I dont think the two are connected. DC is a natural target for terrorists and they have been trying to target DC for the last 8 years. I live hear and I have been wondering when it will happen not if it will happen.
Maybe we will finally get serious about taking care of Osama and his ilk once and for all instead of the half measures we have employed.
Gyges,
I agree with your statement on torture. Just as Mike S., mespo, Mike A. and others pointed out it doesn’t work for getting reliable information, but it does work to keep a populace in line, just as you suggest.
On NPR there’s a big to do about a hugh terrorist attack planned for Washington D.C. This is reminding me of the alert codes which used to change to orange or red depending on what bush needed to cover up. I don’t think it’s coincidental that we hear about this spectacular potential attack exactly at the point Spain indicts some of our top officials for torture.
MikeA:
“It is better for millions of people to do without health care than to expect the majority to provide universal health coverage.”
It is not the responsibility of the majority to provide health care for people that dont have it.
Our current system does provide coverage for people that cannot afford proper care as the following illustrates:
I have a woman that we have known for about 20 years that cleans our house and she has no insurance and she had a stroke last year. She got excellent care which I personally witnessed and once she was over the main hospital stay she was sent to a local rehabilitation hospital for about 4 weeks to get rehabilition, she is now about 95% recovered, she refuses to do her excercises. She paid nothing for this care. From my perspective and this very limited ad hoc survey our health care system works very well and needs no government intervention. I imagine this scenario goes on every day all over the country with similar results.
Free markets and not government properly allocate resources.
If we ever do get socialized medicine you older guys had better hope you never have any serious illness.
“The only problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of the other fellow’s money”
M. Thatcher
Bron,
Sigmund, Carl and Alfred (SC&A), run a blog for the attempted conglomerate of blogs known as Pajama’s Media. As you can tell I’ve got little respect for them but follow their link and make up your own mind.
Mike