A report out today includes a “highly placed source” as saying that part of the reason George W. Bush is not appearing with President Barack Obama at ground zero is that he feels he is not getting part of the credit in the killing.
The source stated “Obama gave no credit whatsoever to the intelligence infrastructure the Bush administration set up that is being hailed from the left and right as setting in motion the operation that got Bin Laden. It rubbed Bush the wrong way.”
Of course, it was Bush (like Clinton) who ignored warnings of the possible attacks and then it was Bush Administration that let Bin Laden slip out of Tora Bora. Bin Laden was nailed years after the departure of Bush and based on recent intelligence hits on the surveillance net. As noted earlier, I am not sure why there is not more discussion of the alleged failure of this and the prior administration to locate Bin Laden in such a conspicuous setting after alleged leads from Pakistan and India. It appears that much of our intelligence estimates on his location may have been wildly wrong.
Clearly, many of the people outside of the Administration (joining some Obama officials) citing torture as part of the success in this story are Bush officials — trying desperately not only to claim part of the success but to legitimate an act defined as a war crime.
This is all part of the spasm of celebration over the killing. I must confess a bit of unease in the scenes of people dancing in the streets and presidents fighting over credit for the killing. I have the same unease when people assemble outside of prisons with frying pans and signs to celebrate the execution of a murderer. Some scenes this month looked uncomfortably like images we saw in the Middle East after the 9-11 attacks. I am also glad that Bin Laden is dead. I will not deny it. However, all of these celebrations only elevate the importance of the man.
As I stated earlier, I have always found it bizarre that we give presidents personal credit for such operations. Whether it is Bush parading around on the aircraft carrier in his flight suit or Obama at ground zero, presidents claim credit for successes by others. Obviously, this order would have been given by Bush and Clinton once Bin Laden fell into our surveillance net. Ironically, presidents are very successful in basking in such glory of others, but do not feel the full brunt of their mistakes like Tora Bora or, more importantly, ignoring the warnings about an attack using aircraft. Those are simply dismissed as missed opportunities or confused circumstances.
What is equally fascinating is that we continue to define victory by Bin Laden’s death while insisting that nothing will change in light of it, as discussed in this week’s column.
Source: NY Daily News
Elaine M,
It’s always good to inject humor when needed 🙂
Thanks Anon Nurse,
G. Greenwald:
{Quote:
“How do you even engage someone in rational discussion who is willing to assume that their fellow citizen is guilty of being a Terrorist without seeing evidence for it, without having that evidence tested, without giving that citizen a chance to defend himself — all because the President declares it to be so? “I know Awlaki, my fellow citizen, is a Terrorist and he deserves to die. Why? Because the President decreed that, and that’s good enough for me. Trials are so pre-9/11.” If someone is willing to dutifully click their heels and spout definitively authoritarian anthems like that, imagine how impervious to reason they are on these issues.”
End Quote}
Stamford Liberal,
Thanks for the link to Cats of War!
anon nurse,
“The Bush-Cheney “cabal” had “actionable intelligence” as far back as the summer of 2001 that Bin Laden had plans to strike the US. And they ignored it.”
Yes, another inconvenient fact …
“I’ll give them all the credit they’d like for the mess that we’re in…”
I second that …
Who’s going to give credit to the unsung hero’s in our military??
Cats of War
The Pentagon’s top-secret feline special-operations program, revealed.
By Holly Allen and Christopher Beam
Posted Thursday, May 5, 2011, at 6:26 PM ET
The American commando team that killed Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, reportedly included a dog, sparking furious speculation about the dog’s identity and discussion of the role of canines in war. Less publicized—and far more essential to top-secret U.S. military operations—are cats.
More at link
http://www.slate.com/id/2293232/
Cats and cat lovers worldwide are vindicated!!
The Bush-Cheney “cabal” had “actionable intelligence” as far back as the summer of 2001 that Bin Laden had plans to strike the US. And they ignored it.
I’ll give them all the credit they’d like for the mess that we’re in…
AY:
This may help, it seems to be the most recent inquiry:
http://peacenews.org/2011/02/u-s-groups-encourage-spain-to-prosecute-bush-officials-veterans-for-peace/
I had a thought late last night (I know, that’s scary!) … whenever Obama or the Democrats talk about the deficit, and the fine mess Obama inherited in January, 2009, the Rabid and Ridiculous Right say, “Doesn’t matter! Obama has spent far more and is destroying this country! You can’t go back now! This is Obama’s economy!”
Yet, here they are attempting to gleen credit … I don’t know about anyone else but since bin Laden has been Obama’s problem since January, 2009, common sense would dictate that if the RRR is going to disavow McFlightsuit’s “Midas Touch” in destroying our economy, they certainly cannot claim credit for this. If the RRR insists on claiming credit for one (bin Laden), they must claim credit for the other (the economy). I know, I know, the RRR, like children, have selective memories and cherry-pick what they choose and choose not to listen to …
Additionally, unless I missed something, I certainly don’t hear anyone asking the RRR a basic question: If McFlightsuit and his cabal of criminals claim that the “actionable intelligence” gleened in 2002 – 2003 from torture has led to bin Laden in 2011, why didn’t McFlightsuit and his cabal of criminals do something “actionable” at that time?
Surely it doesn’t take eight years to act on “actionable” intelligence …
Lastly, I think the final nail in the RRR’s pity party is that this mission netted really valuable intelligence … computers, hard drives … probably more in one night than McFlightsuit netted in eight years …
“Without a whiff of due process”, as Greenwald states…
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/07/awlaki/index.html
U.S. tries to assassinate U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki
by Glenn Greenwald
May 7, 2011
Excerpt:
There are certain civil liberties debates where, even though I hold strong opinions, I can at least understand the reasoning and impulses of those who disagree; the killing of bin Laden was one such instance. But the notion that the President has the power to order American citizens assassinated without an iota of due process — far from any battlefield, not during combat — is an idea so utterly foreign to me, so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, that it’s hard to convey in words or treat with civility.
How do you even engage someone in rational discussion who is willing to assume that their fellow citizen is guilty of being a Terrorist without seeing evidence for it, without having that evidence tested, without giving that citizen a chance to defend himself — all because the President declares it to be so? “I know Awlaki, my fellow citizen, is a Terrorist and he deserves to die. Why? Because the President decreed that, and that’s good enough for me. Trials are so pre-9/11.” If someone is willing to dutifully click their heels and spout definitively authoritarian anthems like that, imagine how impervious to reason they are on these issues.
And if someone is willing to vest in the President the power to assassinate American citizens without a trial far from any battlefield — if someone believes that the President has that power: the power of unilaterally imposing the death penalty and literally acting as judge, jury and executioner — what possible limits would they ever impose on the President’s power? There cannot be any. Or if someone is willing to declare a citizen to be a “traitor” and demand they be treated as such — even though the Constitution expressly assigns the power to declare treason to the Judicial Branch and requires what we call “a trial” with stringent evidence requirements before someone is guilty of treason — how can any appeals to law or the Constitution be made to a person who obviously believes in neither?
end excerpt
Buddha,
Spain to indict Gonzales, Yoo, Feith, Addington, Bybee, and Haynes?
http://www.correntewire.com/spain_indict_gonzales_yoo_feith_addington_bybee_and_haynes
I do not know where it stands now…
Thanks for the reminder, B-I-L… (Good morning.)
anon nurse,
It’s never too late unless they die before they can go to trial.
“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” – Thomas Jefferson
Bush, Cheney, et al, can’t get over the fact that they, apparently, ignored “intelligence” and weren’t able to prevent 9/11. They’ve, ineptly, been trying to cover their tracks ever since. They can appear on the Sunday news shows — they can talk themselves blue… — but some Americans will remember their failures and what they’ve done to America. They’re war criminals — the whole lot of them. And the damage done to this country will take decades to repair, if it’s isn’t already too late.
Part 2:The hard swallow.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42924368#42924496
More revision,or denial?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42924368#42924368
Torture May Have Slowed Hunt For Bin Laden, Not Hastened It
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/torture-may-have-slowed-h_n_858642.html
Excerpt:
Torture apologists are reaching precisely the wrong conclusion from the back-story of the hunt for Osama bin Laden, say experienced interrogators and intelligence professionals.
Defenders of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies have claimed vindication from reports that bin Laden was tracked down in small part due to information received from brutalized detainees some six to eight years ago.
But that sequence of events — even if true — doesn’t demonstrate the effectiveness of torture, these experts say. Rather, it indicates bin Laden could have been caught much earlier had those detainees been interrogated properly.
“I think that without a doubt, torture and enhanced interrogation techniques slowed down the hunt for bin Laden,” said an Air Force interrogator who goes by the pseudonym Matthew Alexander and located Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, in 2006.
It now appears likely that several detainees had information about a key al Qaeda courier — information that might have led authorities directly to bin Laden years ago. But subjected to physical and psychological brutality, “they gave us the bare minimum amount of information they could get away with to get the pain to stop, or to mislead us,” Alexander told The Huffington Post.
“We know that they didn’t give us everything, because they didn’t provide the real name, or the location, or somebody else who would know that information,” he said.
In a 2006 study by the National Defense Intelligence College, trained interrogators found that traditional, rapport-based interviewing approaches are extremely effective with even the most hardened detainees, whereas coercion consistently builds resistance and resentment.
“Had we handled some of these sources from the beginning, I would like to think that there’s a good chance that we would have gotten this information or other information,” said Steven Kleinman, a longtime military intelligence officer who has extensively researched, practiced and taught interrogation techniques.
“By making a detainee less likely to provide information, and making the information he does provide harder to evaluate, they hindered what we needed to accomplish,” said Glenn L. Carle, a retired CIA officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002.
But the discovery and killing of bin Laden was enough for defenders of the Bush administration to declare that their policies had been vindicated.
Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, quickly issued a statement declaring that she was “grateful to the men and women of America’s intelligence services who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to bin Laden.”
John Yoo, the lead author of the “Torture Memos,” wrote in the Wall Street Journal that bin Laden’s death “vindicates the Bush administration, whose intelligence architecture marked the path to bin Laden’s door.”
Former Bush secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld declared that “the information that came from those individuals was critically important.”
Bush’s Torture Team To Dominate This Week’s Sunday Shows
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/06/bushsunday-shows/
One week after President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, the AP reports this afternoon on who we can expect to hear from on this week’s Sunday political talk shows:
ABC’s “This Week” — National security adviser Tom Donilon; Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani; former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
___
NBC’s “Meet the Press” — Donilon; former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; former CIA Director Michael Hayden; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
___
CBS’ “Face the Nation” — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
___
CNN’s “State of the Union” — Donilon; Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; NATO’s secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
___
“Fox News Sunday” — Donilon; former Vice President Dick Cheney.
That’s right. Despite the fact that President Obama gave the order to take down bin Laden, only one Obama administration official will take part in this Sunday’s festivities. By contrast, there are 5 former Bush administration officials making appearances. In total, 7 Republicans are on the networks this Sunday versus 2 Democrats. Torture apologists have been arguing this week that Bush’s torture program is responsible for getting bin Laden. Conveniently, this Sunday, some of the Bush administration officials involved in authorizing it will get their chance to defend themselves.
Stamford Liberal,
Yes, he makes my skin crawl when I hear him speak. The fact that he is teaching law at UC Berkeley doesn’t speak well of that institution of higher learning.
Elaine M,
Does Yoo make you as ill as he makes me?
From my stand-point, anyone who believes that the physical crushing a childs testicles order to mentally inflict damage on a criminal suspect is nothing more than a coward who hides behind his pen and law degree.
He’s teaching law … what does that say about future lawyers who are “lucky” enough to take his class?
Yoo needs to lose his job and lose his license to practice law – now.
“Yoo told CNN on Thursday night that the special forces team sent to kill bin Laden should have instead taken him alive and kept him as a source of future intelligence.”
“Even Castles made of sand, fall into the sea, eventually.
Jimi Hendrix”