Slow Your Damn Roll

I understand why many liberals and progressives think we should just walk away from the war in Afghanistan but generally I totally disagree. Its not that I'm over here quaking in my boots but more so that there is a real and serious threat coming from the region and as important we went over there and fucked up that country, the least we can do is try to rebuild it before we leave. But hey I'm sure this is one of those issues where neither of us will be persuaded and so be it.

But the lengths some of these folks will go to in order to try to hit the Obama administration for not getting out is getting to the point of being laughable. The latest is that after Eric Holder said they have proof that the failed Times Square bomber on the Sunday shows many on the other side of the fence sounded alarms of skepticism. And they are trying SO hard to prove he was lying that they aligned themselves with Kit Bond of all people. You see Kit Bond came out after an intelligence briefing and initially said in pretty generic terms that Holder had overstated the connections between the failed bomber and the Pakistani Taliban. You should have seen these folks breaking their neck to offer this up as "proof" that we had been lied to.

Coming from Kit Bond? Seriously?

Well thankfully Bond came out today and used the type of language with regards to this situation that left no doubt why he was trying to undermine Holder's assertions.




I wonder how many of these folks are gonna run a correction or in the alternative say that they agree with Bond that Holder has "executed a hostile takeover of the intelligence agencies".

See when you are quick to jump on some bullshit, no matter who is shoveling it, just to try to make your case, often times it blows up right in your face. People should learn from this, but I doubt they will.

Dangerous Laughing Stocks

Here is the central problem of our politics today. You have the Democrats led by President Obama who have an agenda they are trying to implement to get our country back on track. Not everything they are doing however is in the best interests of average Americans and or isn't consistent with our Constitution. That's not just my opinion, that's a fact.

But the other major political party has essential decided to eschew any semblence of real and rational arguments against what the Democrats and President Obama are doing, instead choosing to drink from the well of asshatery. Right now there is truly nothing they won't say or do to try to fearmonger against Democrats on any given subject and if that means trying to smear them or trying to smear a group of people in this country and trying to inspire reprisals, hey they are all for it.

Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent piece in Slate about the many legitimate ways the Republican Senators could have criticized Attorney General Holder's reasoning for putting Khalid Sheik Muhammed on trial in federal court in New York. But instead many Senators of the GOP persuasion decided to hold some kind of inquisition about all those "leftist lawyers" now populating the Justice Department who might be terrorist sympathizers.

Seriously.

And the last graf of her piece really puts this all in perspective.

Reasonable people can differ on whether the acts of Sept 11, 2001, were crimes to be handled in court or acts of war to be tried by military tribunals. Experts will never agree on whether criminal trials make us safer or less safe. The 9/11 families also remain split on whether trials or commissions are appropriate. But when you continue to hear that anyone who objects to Bush's detainee policies is unworthy to serve in government, or is part of some elaborate conspiracy to free terrorists, there is truly nothing left to do but laugh.

And yeah she has a point about laughing at them, until you realize that there are people in this country who don't know any better. People will hear Senator Jon Kyl intimate that Attorney General Eric Holder is a terrorist sympathizer and buy it hook line and sinker. People who, still on edge after 9-11, will decide that they HAVE to do something to protect themselves, their family, their friends. People who eventually will attempt to take the law into their own hands because they are being brainwashed into believing that their own government is conspiring against them.

And last night Rachel Maddow took this a step further also focusing on the many Republicans who now think its fine to demean a religion, and to call for the profiling of those who practice Islam.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Journalists, politicians and regular folks can continue to try to make it seem as if this is just politics as usual but its not. What is happening here is one political party is building up a tension inside this country. A tension that is a lot stronger than disagreements over the free market or tax cuts. A tension that is and has been radicalizing a percentage of our citizenry who increasingly see in the Republican party an almost tacit approval a a violent anti government backlash.

Its time for people to stop holding back on this kind of bullshit and sounding the alarm. What I don't want anybody to say if one or some of these crazy bastards go out and try to target liberals or elected Democratic officials is, "Nobody could have forseen..." The writing is right there on the wall for all to see. And if we don't get these assholes to back off the ending will be predictable. At some point people are going to have to decide if that is acceptable to them, and if not they are going to have to say something.

It is what it is.

Andy McCarthy Should Be Tasting Adam Sewer's Shoe Leather Right About Now

Adam Sewer put his foot so far up Andy McCarthy's ass over his ridiculous post on Eric Holder's appearance yesterday at the Senate hearings over trying KSM that if he tried to talk right now he couln't because he would have Adam's foot in his mouth. This dude is a clown and there is no reason for any rational person to take him seriously anyway but just in case Sewer's PWNAGE crushed him.

(h/t Ackerman)

Attorney General Holder's Use Of The Word "Scared"

Here is a part of Attorney General Eric Holder's opening statement today in hearings to discuss putting Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other terrorists on trial in federal court.

Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions. Before the commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an "inquisition," condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.

Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I'm not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.

Fourth, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes. And I expect that they will be held in custody under Special Administrative Measures reserved for the most dangerous criminals.

Finally, there are some who have said this decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don't realize this nation is at war. Three weeks ago, I had the honor of joining the President at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of the remains of eighteen Americans, including three DEA agents, who lost their lives to the war in Afghanistan. The brave soldiers and agents carried home on that plane gave their lives to defend this country and its values, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to carry on the work for which they sacrificed.

I know that we are at war.

I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. I have personally witnessed that somber fact in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad, and I have seen it in the daily intelligence stream I review each day. Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power - civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others - to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.

I thought his opening statement was excellent and really framed the issue from a position of strength. When he said:

I'm not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.

I found that to be very powerful in political terms. On the one hand it puts anyone who opposes this move on the defensive. If he is advocating and implementing a plan to bring KSM to justice in a federal court and he is not scared, what does that make anyone who opposes such a move? And make no mistake about it, even though Republicans are fearmongering hard against it, the truth is none of them want to be labeled as scared. They might say the "fear" something will happen or they are "concerned" but you will never hear them admit they are "scared".

The American people don't like scaredy cats leading them. They want strong leaders who take information into account, but they abhor a coward.

On the other hand when Holder says no one else should be either, he is playing the role of comforter for the nations bedwetters and worry worts. If he isn't afraid then why should any of the rest of us be? And of course no regular person wants to feel like they are acting like a scaredy cat too.

If Democrats were smart they would continue to use the term "scared" in every debate about this issue. Not afraid, not concerned, not fearful, but SCARED.

See how many Republicans run away from that term as soon as it gets thrown around.

Finally, Justice

Eight years later Khalid Sheik Muhammed and various other terrorist will now be brought to justice.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.

But the administration will prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri -- the detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen -- and several other detainees before a military commission, the official said.

The decisions to give civilian prosecutors detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks and keep the case of the Cole attack within the military system are expected to be announced at the Department of Justice later on Friday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

We've been through all the arguments before, but I guarantee we're about to have the same tiresome debate all over again. We'll hear that a U.S. criminal court couldn't possibly be equipped to hear a case against a terrorist suspect -- except for all the U.S. criminal courts that have already proven that they're well equipped to hear cases against terrorist suspects. We'll hear that KSM, if convicted, will end up in an American supermax facility that's ill prepared to house terrorists -- except for all the terrorists that already safely locked away in American supermax facilities.

I've simply never understood the right's weak-kneed panic over the U.S. justice system.

Contra Steve Benen who I have a great amount of respect for, this all makes perfect sense to me. Right wingers only talk about the values this country was founded on in abstract terms but they don't really believe in them. They believe that THEY are the only arbiters of the right way to do things and how justice should be carried out in this country. Its why they try every way possible to undermine existing laws without going through the normal channels to change them. Its why they can promote stuff like torture just to make themselves feel tough. Its why they are so against any bill that ensures equal rights for everyone. For the right its all about their own ego and in this case because they are scared of their own shadow they think everyone else should be too.

And its really that simple. For them they don't care what the law says. Instead they would rather just lock these guys away and throw away the key without even so much as a hint of a trial. They don't trust their fellow citizens to be able to bring back a guilty verdict and therefore they don't think they should have to rely on them. Its really funny to watch them constantly invoke the founding fathers when it suits them when the truth is they either have no idea and or have no respect for what this country was really founded on.

It is what it is.

Update: Utterly predictable...

President McCain

Imagine my fellow Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives, that the unthinkable happened and John McCain won the election last year. At this point he is putting together plans to bomb Iran, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and taxing our health care. In the middle of all this he gives this explanation for why he will never allow anyone to look into torture committed by contractors and sanctioned by the Bush Administration over the previous 8 years.



Now, would you accept President McCain telling you that we have to look forward and not back lest we "damage" the CIA? Would you hold your tongue when he says he won't investigate because its distracting from his policy agenda?

Then why are you accepting those same arguments from President Obama?

Food for thought.

Breaking!!!

MSNBC just reported that Attorney General Eric Holder will in fact appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture and prisoner abuse from our war on terror.

As the saying goes, stay tuned!

Update: From the Washington Post

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has decided to appoint a prosecutor to examine nearly a dozen cases in which CIA interrogators and contractors may have violated anti-torture laws and other statutes when they allegedly threatened terrorism suspects, according to two sources familiar with the move.

Holder is poised to name John Durham, a career Justice Department prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the inquiry, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete.

Durham's mandate, the sources added, will be relatively narrow: to look at whether there is enough evidence to launch a full-scale criminal investigation of current and former CIA personnel who may have broken the law in their dealings with detainees. Many of the harshest CIA interrogation techniques have not been employed against terrorism suspects for four years or more.

The attorney general selected Durham in part because the longtime prosecutor is familiar with the CIA and its past interrogation regime. For nearly two years, Durham has been probing whether laws against obstruction or false statements were violated in connection with the 2005 destruction of CIA videotapes. The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes including waterboarding of some of the agency's high value detainees. That inquiry is proceeding before a grand jury in Alexandria, although lawyers following the investigation have cast doubt on whether it will result in any criminal charges.

More Than A Trial Balloon

Its beginning to look like Attorney General Eric Holder may just be moving towards some prosecutions.

From the New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.’s inspector general but have never been released.

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general’s findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder’s associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

With the release of the details on Monday and the formal advice that at least some cases be reopened, it now seems all but certain that the appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the C.I.A. It is politically awkward, too, for Mr. Holder because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda.

The advice from the Office of Professional Responsibility strengthens Mr. Holder’s hand.
The recommendation to review the closed cases, in effect renewing the inquiries, centers mainly on allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Justice Department report is to be made public after classified information is deleted from it.

The cases represent about half of those that were initially investigated and referred to the Justice Department by the C.I.A.’s inspector general, but were later closed. It is not known which cases might be reopened.

Mr. Holder was said to have reacted with disgust earlier this year when he first read accounts of abusive treatment of detainees in a classified version of the inspector general’s report and other materials.

In examples that have just come to light, the C.I.A. report describes how C.I.A. officers carried out mock executions and threatened at least one prisoner with a gun and a power drill. It is a violation of the federal torture statute to threaten a prisoner with imminent death.

Mr. Holder, who questioned the thoroughness of previous inquiries by the Justice Department, is expected to announce within days his decision on whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct a new investigation; in legal circles, it is believed to be highly likely that he will go forward with a fresh criminal inquiry.

I'm not going to get too worked up about this until we actually see whether Holder is going to move on this or not for sure, but I have to say that it sounds like an investigation is a lot closer to being a reality than not.

Another Trial Balloon?

If Eric Holder is going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture allegations I wish he would do it already and get it out of the way, rather than constantly having these trial balloons leaked to the media.

From The LA Times:

Reporting from Washington -- U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws.

Current and former CIA and Justice Department officials who have firsthand knowledge of the interrogation files contend that criminal convictions will be difficult to obtain because the quality of evidence is poor and the legal underpinnings have never been tested.

Some cases have not previously been disclosed, including an instance in which a CIA operative brought a gun into an interrogation booth to force a detainee to talk, officials said.

Other potentially criminal abuses have already come to light, including the waterboarding of prisoners in excess of Justice Department guidelines, and the deaths of detainees in CIA custody in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 and 2003.


Opening a criminal investigation is something Holder "has come reluctantly to consider," the Justice Department official said, emphasizing that Holder had not reached a final decision but noting that, "as attorney general, he has the obligation to follow the law."

Others familiar with Holder's thinking say that such an investigation seems all but certain, and that a prosecutor will probably be selected from a short list that Holder asked subordinates to assemble.

There is a lot to pick through here. Obviously it will be chickenshit if they just go after the CIA agents who carried out the torture and not the people who ordered it. But more disturbing to me is this sense of cowardice that I get from reading all of these trial balloons. I don't for the media to keep portraying Attorney General Holder as some kind of tortured soul or something. He is SUPPOSED to make tough decisions and he shouldn't be factoring in potential political cost. That is not why people supported him to be Attorney General and its not what his job is supposed to be all about. I keep hearing all this talk about "rule of law" from this administration and about how no man is above it. Well its time for them to put their money where their mouth is and investigate the whole thing from top to bottom.

Ill try to take it apart a little more later today or just link to Glenzilla or Marcy Wheeler should they offer their insights and opinions on it.

Of Revelations And Trial Balloons

First the revelation:

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.

Money quote:

Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the committee’s top Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency has not been as forthcoming as the law requires.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.

Kinda sounds like what Speaker Pelosi said a couple months back doesn't it?


Now the trial balloon:

It's the morning after Independence Day, and Eric Holder Jr. is feeling the weight of history. The night before, he'd stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. "I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about," he says. Now, sitting at his kitchen table in jeans and a gray polo shirt, as his 11-year-old son, Buddy, dashes in and out of the room, Holder is reflecting on his own role. He doesn't dwell on the fact that he's the country's first black attorney general. He is focused instead on the tension that the best of his predecessors have confronted: how does one faithfully serve both the law and the president?

Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

Now here is the deal. We who feel that the Bush Administration MUST be held accountable for their crimes against the constitution have to strike NOW when the iron is still hot! Here we have revelations about all of the ways Dick Cheney held back information from Congress coming at the same time that Eric Holder is openly contemplating an investigation, if there was ever a time that we had a shot at changing public perception on this issue it is now. We need to pound Cheney mercilessly for the next few weeks! Whatever new dirt that can be exposed should be brought out. All of the things we already know should be reemphasized. All of the lies he has told should be recounted. We need to pressure the mainstream media into reporting on the issue as well. Go on the Washington Post chats and keep asking the pundits to hold Cheney and the rest of the Bush administration accountable. Go on the mainsteam media blogs like Swampland or The Note and demand justice. Twitter it out with MSM folks like Jake Tapper and Joe Scarborough and DEMAND accountability.

We have been giving a slight opening. Its up to us to decide if we are going to exploit it or continue waiting on someone else to do it for us.

It is what it is.

"Conformed Their Conduct To That Advice"

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

Statement from Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the release of OLC memos and any potential prosecutions of CIA personnel.


Yesterday ABC News posted a breaking a story about an intelligence report released by the CIA on the briefings that took place going back to 2002 and beyond of the members of Congress on the enhanced interrogation torture techniques authorized by the now infamous OLC memos. The focus of the ABC News story was on whether or not Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed on Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded, something she previously denied had happened during one of the briefings. Now personally reading the report, to me, doesn't refute Speaker Pelosi's story at all. There is no notation of a specific mention of waterboarding during this briefing as there are in subsequent briefings to other members of Congress. And about the only thing it does say is that she was briefed on the techniques used against Abu Zubaydah. But I think the focus of the article is totally off, perhaps intentionally or perhaps not. But here is the thing to keep in mind. This briefing took place accordiing to the intelligence report on September 4th of 2002. The OLC memo authorizing EITs was dated August 1st of 2002.

Why do those dates matter? Well allow me to quote from that August 1, 2002 memo:

You have informed us that the use of these techniques would be on an as needed bases and that not all of these techniques will necessarily be used. The interrogation team would use these techniques in some combination to convince Zubaydah that the only way he can influence his surroundings is through cooperation. You have, however, informed us that you expect these techniques to be used in some sort of excalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique.

Now to go back to the dates. The OLC memos authorizing 10 torture techniques to be used against Abu Zubaydah including waterboarding was dated on August 1, 2002. Thats just 34 days before the September 4, 2002 briefing to Speaker Pelosi. So if we are to believe that the CIA briefed Speaker Pelosi and told her that waterboarding had already been used on Abu Zubaydah on Sept 4th, how does that square with using the 9 other techniques in escalating fashion from just 34 days earlier? Now obviously perhaps the truth is that the intelligence report just confirms that Speaker Pelosi was telling the truth. But then there is also the evidence that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in the month of August. Now if in fact the CIA had employed the techniques prior to August 1st and or they did not use waterboarding as a last resort, wouldn't that imply that they hadn't "conformed their conduct to that advice" the litmus test that Attorney General Holder put forth as to whom would be open to prosecution for torture?

I have posted before about the timeline discrepancy with respect to Khalid Sheik Muhammed. From all the public reports it would seem that in the same month that KSM as captured he was waterboarded 183 times. That would lead a reasonable person to believe that waterboarding wasn't the last resort but the first resort of these CIA interrogators. But thats not the bill of goods that has been sold to the public at large. Lets just go to Dick Cheney's words a few days ago in an interview published on Politico:

Cheney: Well, I don’t believe that’s true. That assumes that we didn’t try other ways, and in fact we did. We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy ... with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we’d gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances.

I personally believe that Cheney and the rest of the pro torturists are framing the issue this way so as to get people to believe that we waterboarded only when we had no other choice. In fact he specifically wants you to believe that the CIA had tried "all other steps" before resorting to waterboarding. Now reasonable people might hear that and think "Well gee, they tried everything they could but the detainees wouldn't talk so they felt they had to do something drastic". This plays into the "24" ticking time bomb mindset that is prevalent in our country these days. I have seen and heard many people say stuff like "You have to do what you have to do to protect the homeland" or some version of that. But what if it was shown that we DIDN'T have to use these techniques to get the information as FBI interrogator Ali Soufan has asserted several times? What if it was shown that we didn't even try to get the information any other way and went straight to torture. And bigger than that, if these people didn't follow the advice of the OLC memos? Do you think that would affect public opinion? I do.

The intelligence reports should actually be furthering the push towards prosecutions for torture, but our MSM is instead going to use it to push a flame war. We deserve better and we should demand better!

Independent Investigation?

This certainly gives me hope.

The Bushies Can't Keep Their Story Straight

To say that criticizing George Bush is like shooting fish in a barrel would be over stating how easy it is to shoot fish in a barrel. But I would like to point out yet another contradiction by his peoples. This time its the comedic duo of Dana Perino and Tony Fratto, both spokesman for President Can't Get Right. The topic today is the revoked pardon of slimeball mortgage fraud guy Isaac Robert Toussie. Now some people wrongly assumed that Bush revoked the pardon of Toussie after he learned about the merits of the case he pled guilty to. Not so says Ms. Perino. From the Washington Post:

White House press secretary Dana Perino said neither Bush nor counsel Fred Fielding was aware of the GOP contributions from the father of Isaac Robert Toussie, who had been convicted of mail fraud and of making false statements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Perino said Bush had also been unaware of other aspects of the Toussie case that were revealed in news reports yesterday.

"Looking at the totality of the case, more could have been described to the president," Perino said. "The political contributions certainly were not known. It raises the appearance of impropriety, so the president prudently decided not to go through with the pardon."

See as usual with Bush it was "all about the Benjamins baby". In this case Perino is clearly stating that the appearance of impropriety because of the political contributions of Toussie's father was the driving force behind the revocation of the pardon. So then you might assume by Perino's statement that whether or not political contributions were made by a potential pardon recipient's family or friends should be a criteria in whether or not they are actually granted that pardon by the President. Not according to Tony Fratto. He says its all crazy talk.

From the USA Today:

Bush spokesman Tony Fratto declined to discuss the Maiss case, saying the White House ordinarily does not comment on individual pardon decisions.

"We do not look into political contributions" in reviewing pardon requests, he said Thursday. "We think it would be inappropriate to do that. They should have no influence over our decision-making."

Now I guess I should in the interests of full disclosure point out that Fratto was actually referring to a different pardon granted to Alan Maiss and the money that he contributed to Bush's reelection in 2004, but isn't it interesting the different criteria that spokesman for the President have for pardons being handed out depending upon who the pardon is handed out to and what their crime was? Some has been ex gambling exec refuses to rat out a peer on his ties to organized crime and who cares what monies he gave to the Republicans. It shouldn't even be in the criteria for granting the pardon. I mean La Costra Nostra hasn't exactly been in the news of late. But let a guy who has involved in mortgage fraud with the ongoing financial crisis where mortgage fraud is part of the genesis of the problem, then in that case party contributions are vewy vewy bad. Don't get me wrong, I think the slimeball should not only not be pardoned but also thrown back in jail. But why the double standard at work here?

Of course maybe, just maybe this contradiction is largely due to the fact that Karl Rove wants to derail the Eric Holder confirmation for Attorney General because of his role in the Marc Rich scandal and Toussie's pardon would have hurt that effort.

Nah, nobody is that devious. Are they?

Bitchassness

Diddy was right, bitchassness is a disease and it can spread like wildfire if left unchecked. One has to look no further than the Senate Democratic Caucus where seems to be spreading like the hanta virus. Exhibit A Senator Patrick Leahy

The Committee has not yet received the names of other designees for high-ranking Department of Justice officials that we had anticipated and more time is now available to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, to accommodate the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, at their request we are delaying the hearing, again, until January 15. The Assistant Republican Leader said last year that ‘attorney general nominees have been confirmed, on average, in approximately three weeks.’

Nonetheless, in order to accommodate the Republicans members, I am rescheduling the hearing on Mr. Holder for twice that long, until more than six weeks after his official designation.It is disappointing to me that they are insisting that we delay at a time when the nation needs its top law enforcement officer and national security team in place and working. I trust that with this additional time to prepare, they will cooperate in proceeding promptly to Committee and Senate consideration of the historic Holder nomination as Democrats did for President Bush.

And to think I was calling for Leahy to replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader just a few days ago. Of course he had me fooled with his fire breathing dragon act.


I guess this cartoon sums it up.