They Really Are Cowards

You know, one of the most irritating things about being a Democrat is how few of our elected officials are ever willing to actually fight for something. They are so scared of Republican threats that many of them run for the hills at the first sign of trouble. And the truth is on the few occasion when a Democrat actually stands up to them invariably its the Republican who turn tails and run like the cowards they are.

Witness this situation today on the floor of the House. Republican Rep Jason Chaffetz decides to run with some unsourced unfounded rumors against retiring Democrat Bart Gordon on the floor. But look at how fast he backpeddles when Gordon gets up and confronts him about it.



See Republicans like to talk slick because they know they can usually get away with it with no reprecussions. But when they get even the slightest bit of pushback they scatter like roaches. If only Democrats could understand this they could destroy the Republican Party for a generation. But as long as they continue to only give sporadic pushback to Republican lies, then jack asses like Chaffetz will continue to sneak around and talk shit about them.

And I Bet He STILL Gets Quoted By WingNuts On Waterboarding

Well, it's official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn't know what he was talking about.

Kiriakou, a 15-year veteran of the agency's intelligence analysis and operations directorates, electrified the hand-wringing national debate over torture in December 2007 when he told ABC's Brian Ross and Richard Esposito in a much ballyhooed, exclusive interview that senior al Qaeda commando Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the face cloth and water.

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

No matter that Kiriakou wearily said he shared the anguish of millions of Americans, not to mention the rest of the world, over the CIA's application of the medieval confession technique.

The point was that it worked. And the pro-torture camp was quick to pick up on Kiriakou's claim.

snip

Now comes John Kiriakou, again, with a wholly different story. On the next-to-last page of a new memoir, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror (written with Michael Ruby), Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up.

"What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," he writes. "I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence."

But never mind, he says now.

"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time."

foreignpolicy.com

"Waterboarding kept us safe" was, is, and always has been a load of bullshit meant to justify the indulgences of cowards. Sadly, no matter how many of these stories come out now, the wingnuts and many other people who just don't follow the news closely will never acknowledge and or realize just how opposite it was from the truth.

My List-Updated

Here is my FUCK YOU list.

Blanche Lincoln, FUCK YOU , DOUBLE FUCK YOU

Max Baucus, FUCK YOU, DOUBLE FUCK YOU

Kent Conrad, FUCK YOU, DOUBLE FUCK YOU

Bill Nelson, FUCK YOU

Thomas Carper, FUCK YOU

These are so called Democrats on the Senate Finance committee who voted against Jay Rockerfeller's public option amendment.

That is all.

Update: If 2 out of the three asshats who voted against Schumer's amendment had voted yes then it would have moved out of committee. And that includes Max Baucus who SAYS he is for a public option but just can't find a way to vote for it. Blanche Lincoln can cancel christmas. She is toast!

Cowards On Facebook

I can only hope that the Secrets Service is going to show these cowards just how unfunny it is to joke about killing the President of the United States.

Why People Don't Self Identify As Liberals Or Progressives: Van Jones Edition

It has been somewhat of an eye opener to watch the fallout of the Van Jones resignation. A little of what I have seen has been predictable, the gloating by the wingnuts and their committment to collect more "radical" scalps, and the rationalization of some President Obama voters that this just wasn't a fight worth fighting. But the one thing that has made my blood boil just a little hotter than I thought it would is how easy it was for some so called liberals and progressives to walk away from Van Jones just over the prospect of him being a 9/11 truther, not today, but over 5 years ago. Mind you several of these so called liberals and progressives actually have the title of journalist behind their name. Yet did they take any time at all to look into whether not Van Jones was a truther? Hell no. It was enough that he supposedly signed this truther document to just accept it as fact, and lord knows no self respecting liberal or progressive wants to be associated with those loony tin foil hatters who believe 9/11 was an inside job, so "Van Jones had to go!".

So what exactly made Van Jones a "truther" by the media narrative? Well it was this statement which he signed on to in 2004. Well to be fair its not really the WHOLE statement that did it. It was basically this line from the statement.

In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

Now I have to admit, that is one helluva statement. I can even understand people being repulsed by it. But see as much as the Dick Cheney's of the world want to remind us of just how scared out of their shorts they were after 9/11 in order to justify torture, I can also remember how many questions went unanswered with the 9-11 commission report and how after we rushed into the Iraq War lots of people were drawing crazy conclusions. LOTS OF PEOPLE. Seriously, are you going to tell me none of you people out there reading this ever watched the viral video "Loose Change"? Hell I will admit I did, several times. So I guess that insures I will never work in the federal government. But I digress.

Having said all that about that statement, lets first look at the actual questions on the petition.

1.Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2.Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3.Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4.Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5.Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?

6.Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?

7.How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?

8.How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

9.What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?

10.Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

11.Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?

12.Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Now many of these questions are provocative to be sure, but do any of them smell like "truther" questions? Not really.

So lets take two seconds to think on this. Could the 9/11 truther people, pushing their own agenda, perhaps presented the signatories with just the questions they would be demanding be answered and then added the caveat about 9/11 being an inside job after the fact? Seems pretty likely to me. But I don't want to just rely on my gut feeling, besides maybe I am just biased in favor of Van Jones right? (I admit I am a fan). So lets look around the list of signatories and see what we can see shall we?

Now I want to just throw something out there before hand. As far as I can tell the only "evidence" that Van Jones was a truther, believing in his heart of hearts that 9/11 was an inside job is this "truther statement". The internet being what it is today and with Jones' extensive public speaking as an advocate of a green economy, you would think something would show up in a search where he, speaking in his own voice, offered up an opinion about 9/11 being an inside job. But to date no such writings nor speech has been found. And don't believe for a second that the intertubes haven't been scoured for somethign like that by the FoxNewses and the Glenn Beckites of the world. But again, I digress.

Now to be sure, there certainly are some truthers on the list. I won't even look up "birther" Phillip Berg who is currently still trying to get President Obama out of office by suing him for his birth certificate. But lets look at just a random name or two. Lets look at say Catherine Austin Fitts. She is a signatory and she was also Asst. Secretary of Housing in the first Bush administration. She now has a blog of her own and you can look at it here. If you put "9/11 investigation" into the search engine it spits out several articles/posts which relate to it. It would seem that if Ms Fitts is not a true "truther" she at the least remains very interested in an investigation into 9/11.

Ok how about Medea Benjamin, co founder of Code Pink. Is she a truther? Well I found this statement from hers, also from 2004, which comes close to the "truther statement" but doesn't go all the way in calling 9-11 an inside job. Again you can make a judgement on your own, and for sure Code Pink is truly a far left anti war group. I just don't know that "9/11 was an inside job" has been their rallying cry over the years.

How about another signatory, former CIA analyst and professor at the National War College, Melvin Goodman. Now I found this online chat of his from right after George Tenet resigned from the CIA in 2004. Please recall that Tenet resigned not over 9/11 but over the false pre Iraq War intelligence. He took one for the team so to speak. Now if ever here was a time for Goodman to come out strong for 9/11 being an inside job this would have been it. It was after all the same year that he supposedly signed on as a "truther". Instead as part of an answer in the chat session he characterized it this way.

Mel Goodman : Tenet should have resigned when Clinton pushed him into the policy of the Middle East peace process in 1999; he should have resigned after 9/11 because of the intelligence failure; and he should have resigned when the White House dictated the kind of intelligence it wanted. Tenet stayed because he wanted to please his masters....you can never win in the bureaucracy when you start to tailor the intelligence.

What the hell? What does he mean "intelligence failure"?! Don't truthers think that the intelligence was there but the government disregarded it?

Just throwing it out there.

Now there are two other signatories of the "truther statement" that I also found some information on. Crazy lady, former member of Congress Cynthia McKinney, and also Jenna Orkin. Now I am not holding up McKinney in any way shape or form. She seemed to have lost her damn mind the last few years or so. However its still worth illuminating what is publicly available on the interwebs. This is from 2006, obviously a couple of years after the "truther statement".

It is a matter of public record that the government did not always voluntarily tell the whole truth about 9-11. In the first days after the tragedy, the EPA said the air was safe (see "Truth Out," page 32). The Bush administration claimed there had been no warnings of the attacks. A congressional inquiry was prevented from discussing information the intelligence community provided to the White House. The White House resisted forming an independent commission, stalled on releasing documents, delayed in allowing Condoleezza Rice to testify in public, and agreed to let the president meet with the commission only on the conditions that there be no oath administered, no formal transcript made, and that Vice President Dick Cheney be at his side. Several members of the commission had to recuse themselves from parts of the probe because their government or private-sector careers posed conflicts. And in its final report, the commission punted on such questions as where the money for the attacks originated, dubbing that issue "of little practical significance."

The long list of obfuscations and obstructions has helped the Truth movement attract sympathizers who don't buy the idea that the attacks were planned by the government. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia has taken up some of the movement's themes. Actor Ed Begley Jr. co-hosted a September 11, 2004, Truth event in New York because of his environmental concerns. "As to the other more fantastic theories about the events of 9-11, I don't care to comment, other than to say that they have raised some very interesting questions that I would love to see answered," Begley tells the Voice in an e-mail.

Another environmental activist, Jenna Orkin, also admires aspects of the movement but distances herself from others. "I think it's terribly important," she says, "to distinguish between the legitimate questions and the wackiness—and the wackiness has contaminated the legitimate questions in a very destructive way."

Now, in total, it probably took me all of 10 minutes to find this information. Is any of it definitive either way? I suspect not. But I think most of it casts a lot of doubt on whether signing on to that "truther statement" in 2004 meant you were actually a truther. And let me say something else, just keeping it 100, I am not exactly a great blogger. Truth be told my forte isn't really tracking down information. But there are a LOT of liberal and progressive bloggers who not only know how to track down information, but also have just enough juice to have sources that will talk to them on or off the record. And just as a reminder, you won't find even this kind of stuff on Van Jones if you check the internet. His involvement in trying to get answers to questions about 9-11 seems to begin and end with this statement. And yet where was at least the attempt to do any push back for Van Jones when this tempest in a teapot sparked up? Hell for that matter where has it been in the after math? Why in the hell are so many so called liberals and progressives so willing to just wash their hands and say good riddance when it comes to Van Jones?

Well I have a theory on that. And ironically its directly because of the fuckery of the right wing as to why Van Jones was allowed to be thrown under the bus.

See a lot of us on the left having been having a lot of fun calling out the "birther" wingnuts, those idiots who keep contending that President Obama isn't a natural born citizen. Mind you there is an actual birther bill in Congress right now with several GOP co sponsors whom nobody has asked to resign their seat but hey IOKIYAR is always in full effect right? But see the pushback almost from the get go on any criticism of the "birthers" has been the Pee Wee Herman defense of "well yeah but X percent of Democrats think 9/11 was an inside job". That is of course, total bullshit, but it has been repeated so many times by the wingnuts on TV with out many if any liberals or progressives calling bullshit on it that the mainstream media has started repeating it as fact.

So you see this was the perfect Trojan Horse to throw at Van Jones. The right wing knows that the left has so many cowards that as soon as the issue of him being a "truther" came up, people would run for the hills. And, of course they were right. Mind you it was obvious to most of the people paying attention that this was really about "Color of Change" a group that Jones co founded, going after Glenn Beck's advertisers. And they didn't just go after them, they got the overwhelming majority of them to pull their ads from Beck's show. So of course Jones had to pay.

What was perhaps most interesting to me was how "good white liberals" were so quick to try to dismiss the notion that racism played a role in this too. As a black man I am intimately aware of how screaming racism every five minutes diminishes situation where real racism is at work. But you would have to damn near be blind not to see the racial angle to this. If not directly at Jones, then directed at President Obama through attacking Jones. And yet a prominent "good white liberal" blogger/journalist, who ironically spends a lot of his time tracking right wing hate groups, opined on his twitter page the other day that we shouldn't "obsess over race" lest we come off as "whiny" because Van Jones did himself in by being a "truther". Setting aside for a moment just how much this guy came off sounding like Pat Buchanan, lets focus on the fact that he had no evidence at all other than this 5 year old statement, that may or may not have been accurately presented to Jones before he signed it, to prove that Jones is or was a "truther". Yet here this "good white liberal" was stating it as a fact, on his twitter page, to make sure none of us happened to say race played a role. (full disclosure, another prominent white liberal blogger pushed back hard on this notion and for that he gets major props from me). Mind you, we had just seen the most blatantly racist attempt to derail a Supreme Court Justice EVER in our country's history, and yet when confronted with that, this blogger/journalist dismissed it because Obama had "won" on that one.

Seriously.

It couldn't possibly get any better for the right wing.

They know "good white liberals" don't want to be smeared as playing the race card, which wingnuts love to throw around whenever the issue of racism comes up. So they were free to say whatever they wanted about Jones, real or imagined, knowing that they wouldn't have to answer for their race baiting.

See this episode says as much about the left as it does about the wingnuts. We have all kinds of talent in the media and the blogosphere and only a fraction of it even attempted to stand up for Van Jones. And Jones was one of the true lefties, ie one of us, in the Obama administration that would have been pushing for progressive legislation in the green energy sector. And we just stood their with our thumbs up our collective asses lest the right wing call us mean names.

Well allow me for a moment to call bullshit on that.

I realize that I am very low on the totem pole and honestly thats probably for the best. See for a lot of my fellow liberals and progressives they would probably see me as being too "over the top". I curse, I talk shit, I believe in hard nose politics, I don't like "moral victories", I favor progressive policies over elected officials, I would rather fight and lose than be quiet and hope for the best. For many liberals and progressives that's just not behavior that's in the handbook. Well I for one think the handbook needs to be changed. Once liberals and progressives grow our spines back and start standing up and fighting for what we believe in we will bring more people into the fold. Don't get me wrong, there are some strong liberals and progressives out there, but for the most part we are upstarts fighting against the establishment. Which is why we get to be lumped into the "far left" even though most of our policy positions are in the mainstream if not the majority of public opinion. Well even people who agree with us, now refuse to self identify themselves as liberals or progressives. And that is because we continue to look like a bunch of bed wetting cowards.

You want to know how the right wing would have reacted had Van Jones been one of theirs? Well first of all they would have invoked the first amendment which allows them to say whatever the hell they want without any threat of blowback. Secondly they would have pointed out that there were also 48 family members of people who died on 9/11 who signed onto that statement and anything people are saying about Van Jones would apply to them as well. Which would of course be reprehensible, and they would demand an apology on behalf of those family members. They would have brought up the issue of the 9/11 commission and how the Bush Administration stalled its creation over and over, didn't cooperate with it when it was formed, and how the Commission's Report was blasted because of all of the subjects that it didn't address. And you can rest assured that they would have also brought up the fact that not a single solitary person in the Bush administration was fired after 9/11, well unless you count Richard Clarke, the one person who was actually ringing the bell about Al Qaeda and who was ignored for his trouble. And guess what, Democrats and lefties would have backed the hell off and let Van Jones be. What the hell is wrong with this picture?!

If the last 8 years has taught us anything its that people will follow an idiot as long as they feel like that idiot will fight for them. And let me tell you, because of our actions or rather inactions as it pertained to Van Jones you might as well get ready. We are going to have a BUNCH of more fights on the horizon now. Hopefully the establishment liberals and progressives will start to read the writing on the wall and get ready to start pushing back. If not we will look up a year from now and not only see the prospects for liberals running for Congress very low, but also an Obama administration either missing key people or even more stocked with "centrists" in key positions than it is already.

It is what it is.

P.S. If you want to know why it was worth fighting for Van Jones, just read this profile of him from a few years ago.

Why Democrats Hate Democrats

First off I gotta give props to the much (rightly) maligned Ceci Connolly for debunking the euthanasia cannard in the health care reform bills in her new articlce in the Washington Post. I personally feel like she just posted a crib notes version of a Media Matters post on the issue without attribution, but as long as its exposed as a fraud in the pages of a newspaper with as high a circulation as WaPo I really don't care.

But one part of her article just about made me want to smash my laptop into bits. Check this out...

Democratic strategists privately acknowledged that they were hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors.

snip

After letting the controversy simmer on talk radio and the blogosphere, expecting that it might blow over, Democrats have begun to respond.

Now I don't know which Democratic strategists gave these quotes anonymously, but they should never be allowed to advise another Democrat ever again in life. I don't know if its more infuriating that these people prove the notion that Democrats don't have any spine or that they could even possibly be so naive. The right wing ideologues in this country, especially those on talk radio, have already shown that they will not let anything just "blow over" especially on a topic they are so vehemently opposed to as health care reform.

What kind of fucking idiots are actually advising our elected Democrats in Congress? What kind of a dumb ass would even begin to believe that the euthanasia cannard would just magically go away? And how can they possibly have not learned anything from then Senator Obama's campaign last year? Its enough to make me want to scream!

Someone should email every Democrat in Congress the link to "Fight The Smears" dot com. This website was a freaking stroke of genius for candidate Obama last year. He had the good common sense to realize that Republicans and special interests traffic in misinformation and confusion to win every single one of their battles. And the only way to successfully over come that kind of garbage is to correct the record forcefully and in a way that is widely available to reach the most people. Whether it was a right wing blogger or a right wing radio host or a right wing member of Congress, if they were pushing bullshit out about candidate Obama, you can best believe they were smacked down on the website.

So where exactly is our health care reform version of "Fight The Smears"?

This would be the perfect time for Democrats in both houses of Congress to put up a website debunking all the right wing and corporatist smears against health care reform. I can damn well guarantee that its about to get worse this whole month. How helpful would it be to have one place that they could tell their constituents to go to find out the truth about the proposed legislation? But instead you have Democratic advisors with their thumbs up their asses just hoping they can close their eyes and everything will be all better. And in the mean time every lie and smear and mischaraterization gets the chance to get a foot hold and in some circles get repeated so much that they become conventional wisdom. At that point you can refute everything all you want but people are still going to hang on to that first impression. It is what it is.

Now there is a citizen made site to help fight the health care reform smears which I have posted before and will post again here. But why should WE have to do the damn job of the people in Congress? If they are so damned stupid and or cowardly that they won't put in place a method to debunk all of the lies about health care reform, do they even deserve to be members of Congress anymore?

We really REALLY need to get a better brand of Democrat in Congress, and I mean ASAP!

Suprisingly, It Could Have Been Worse

I don't know how serious the AP is about trying to round up people who excerpt their work so I will just link to thieir article and paraphrase.

It turns out that in 2002 Dick Cheney and the rest of his NeoCon brood tried to convince President Bush to use the military to go into Buffalo, New York and apprehend some terrorism suspects instead of the FBI. Its now apparent to me that there is no way to overestimate just how big of a coward Cheney and his wing of the Executive Office were. There are many many good reasons why its against the policy of the United States of America to use our military domestically, especially for police actions. Bush ultimately told them no, at least according to the AP article, but the simple fact that Cheney was advocating this just goes to show you how much of a chicken hawk the man really was.

And this is the guy the GOP is now trying to make into some kind of hero. Give me a damn break.

Doubling Down On Being A Dick

I guess for some people support for the troops is contingent on who is in the White House.




Both of those assholes are truly despicable. I don't think much else needs to be said.

Who Said What And Why?

There is a new Washington Post story up about the torture of Abu Zubaydah at GITMO. Now I am not quite sure who gets to make these kinds of decisions but, and I bullshit you not, the overwhelming bulk of the story is derived from "anonymous" sources. Mind you WaPo allows these former Bushies to contradict Ali Soufan, a decorated FBI agent whom is still in the field trying to keep us all safe and who has testfied under oath to Congress and still enjoy the freedom to lie that comes with being an "anonymous" source. Its really ironic that on the weekend that we lose an icon in journalism, Walter Cronkite, that the Post would publish such an antithesis to journalism excellence and integrity.

Now ostensibly I guess the article is an attempt by some former Bush officials to push back on the notion that Abu Zubaydah didn't yield any useful information as a result of torture. To wit I think that this part of the article comes the closest to trying to substantiate this claim.

Soufan testified to Congress in May that Abu Zubaida went silent once Mitchell took charge. Within days of the CIA team's arrival, the cables between Bangkok and Langley became devoid of new revelations. Agency officials decided to let the FBI back into the interrogations, but on the condition that forced nudity and sleep deprivation be allowed to continue.

The CIA team lowered the temperature in Abu Zubaida's cell until the detainee turned blue. The FBI turned it back up, setting off a clash over tactics.

Under FBI questioning, Abu Zubaida identified an operative he knew as Abdullah al-Mujahir, the alias, he said, of an American citizen with a Latino name. An investigation involving multiple agencies identified the suspect as Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda operative later convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

"In two different bits, after sleep deprivation, is when Abu Zubaida gave clues about who Padilla might be," the former U.S. official said. "When that was put together with other CIA sources, they were able to identify who he was. . . . The cables will not show that the FBI just asked friendly questions and got information about Padilla."

This is such a blatant attempt at sleight of hand that the Washington Post should be held in contempt by all of its readers for insulting our intelligence in this fashion. Now mind you supposedly this article was put together based on anonymous sources as well as information already out in the public domain. Well lets examine Ali Soufan's account of how they came to glean information about Jose Padilla from Abu Zubaydah.

Only weeks later, this clash of cultures played out in the heated dispute over how to handle Abu Zubaydah. A Palestinian who is believed to have served as logistics chief for Afghan terrorist-training camps, Abu Zubaydah was captured after a bloody gunfight. He was transferred from Pakistan to Thailand, where Soufan and Gaudin immediately sought to gain his trust by nursing his wounds. (Soufan would not comment on the location of the interrogation; sources, who like others interviewed for this story didn't want to be named discussing sensitive information, have placed him in Thailand at this time. An FBI spokesman says Gaudin, who is still in the bureau, would not comment on his role in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations.) "We kept him alive," Soufan says. "It wasn't easy, he couldn't drink, he had a fever. I was holding ice to his lips." Gaudin, for his part, cleaned Abu Zubaydah's buttocks. During this time, Soufan and Gaudin also began the questioning; it became a "mental poker game." At first, Abu Zubaydah even denied his identity, insisting that his name was "Daoud."

But Soufan had poured through the bureau's intelligence files and stunned Abu Zubaydah when he called him "Hani"—the nickname that his mother used for him. Soufan also showed him photos of a number of terror suspects who were high on the bureau's priority list. Abu Zubaydah looked at one of them and said, "That's Mukhtar."

Now it was Soufan who was stunned. The FBI had been trying to determine the identity of a mysterious "Mukhtar," whom bin Laden kept referring to on a tape he made after 9/11. Now Soufan knew: Mukhtar was the man in the photo, terror fugitive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and, as Abu Zubaydah blurted out, " the one behind 9/11."

As the sessions continued, Soufan engaged Abu Zubaydah in long discussions about his world view, which included a tinge of socialism. After Abu Zubaydah railed one day about the influence of American imperialist corporations, he asked Soufan to get him a Coca-Cola—a request that prompted the two of them to laugh. Soon enough, Abu Zubaydah offered up more information—about the bizarre plans of a jihadist from Puerto Rico to set off a "dirty bomb" inside the country. This information led to Padilla's arrest in Chicago by the FBI in early May.

But the tenor of the Abu Zubaydah interrogations changed a few days later, when a CIA contractor showed up. Although Soufan declined to identify the contractor by name, other sources (and media accounts) identify him as James Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist who had worked on the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training—a program to teach officers how to resist the abusive interrogation methods used by Chinese communists during the Korean War. Within days of his arrival, Mitchell—an architect of the CIA interrogation program—took charge of the questioning of Abu Zubaydah. He directed that Abu Zubaydah be ordered to answer questions or face a gradual increase in aggressive techniques. One day Soufan entered Abu Zubadyah's room and saw that he had been stripped naked; he covered him with a towel.

So you have Ali Soufan putting his name on it when he says that Mitchell wasn't even at GITMO when Zubaydah gave up Jose Padilla and thus there is no way the information could have come from torture. And on the other hand you have an anonymous former Bush official (probably a Dick Cheney lackey or Cheney himself) anonymously lying about the very timeline of events and the Washington Post doesn't even take the time out to acknowledge that the timeline is even in dispute. Are we really supposed to be that stupid or maybe that woefully under informed that we just accept this anonymous sources' word over a man who has testifed under oath about what went down with Zubaydah and continues to put his life on the line battling terrorist all over the world?

The Washington Post is quickly hastening its own demise with this kind of slppy and lazy, intellectually dishonest work.

But even with all of the misdirection thrown around in the article there is still one major takeaway. There is no way these people can claim that what was done to Zubaydah was not torture.

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

One More Time

CIA officials at the Counterterrorist Center were not convinced.

"Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent," the former official said. "Headquarters said it would be on the team's back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, 'You've lost your spine.' "

Mitchell and Jessen now found themselves in the same position as Soufan, Shumate and others.

"It was hard on them, too," the former U.S. official said. "They are psychologists. They didn't enjoy this at all."

The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said.

After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

A 2005 Justice Department memo released this year confirmed the visit. "These officials," the memo said, "reported that enhanced techniques were no longer needed."

It is apparent that the chickenhawks inhabiting the White House were so afraid of their own shaddow that they didn't give a shit about whether Abu Zubaydah or any other prisoner they used torture on was giving them good information. All they cared about was torturing the guy over and over again so there was at least the appearance of intelligence coming in so they could cover their ass in case another attack happened. What a joke it is to hear them now try to claim they kept this country safe and beat their chests as if they are some kind of heros.

They truth is every single one of them were and are cowards and that torture is the tool of cowards. Its the brave man who sticks to his values and morals in the face of grave consequences, the coward is the one who gives them up in the interest of cutting corners.

If there is any justice in the world these people who ordered torture will be held accountable for their crimes, sooner rather than later.

More Like "Yellow" Dogs

Ed Schultz just proved my point this evening when he challenged two Blue Dog Democrats in the House on whether or not they support a strong public option. As soon as he pressed them on the issue both of them folded up like cheat tents.

Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the leadership of the House should take a look at this video and realize that these clowns will NEVER vote against health care reform when it comes up for a vote. They are cowards and this is one time that it works in our favor!

Rudy Poot Candy Ass Congressman Rodriguez

Talk about living down to the reputation of Democrats as cowards.

After all the arms had been twisted, only two four Democrats gave their leadership an unpleasant surprise at the end of the climate change vote -- and are firmly in Pelosi-Obama doghouse:

Texas Rep. Ciro Rodriguez and Rep. Alcee Hastings from Florida, according to House sources.

UPDATE: House leadership sources add two more who reportedly said "yes" and voted "no" -- Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and Solomon Ortiz (D-Tx.)

Rodriguez had told leadership that he was a likely yes -- but then cast a quick "no" vote and practically sprinted from the chamber, frustrating floor managers whose shouts of "Rodriguez!" rang through the House as the final anxious votes were cast.

At one point, New York Rep. Anthony Weiner bounced from a huddle of leadership members and began calling the rep's name, like a wayward toddler, as he scanned the Speaker's lobby and the adjacent balcony.

"He cast his no and then ran the hell out of there," said a member of the whipping team, still steaming after the vote. "We tried him at his office and they said he was gone."

Seriously, Cicero did you think hauling ass and hiding out is going to help you win reelection? Is that the kind of Representative you think your constituents want? Hell I am not really that pressed about the no vote, but at least be a man and stand up for your vote.

When he goes to pick up his check for being a member of Congress he ought to wear a mask, because he is stealing right now.

I also watched the vote live on CSPAN and right up until the last moment there were 220 votes to pass the bill. Then right as voting was about to close and after it was apparent the bill would pass, another courage challenged Democrat changed their yea vote to a nay vote.

I would just LOVE to know who that coward was.

I realize that there are a lot more seats in the House but damn, is that REALLY who we want as Democrats these days?!

A Rare Moment Of Truth From Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham admits what we on the left always knew, Bush and Cheney were cowards.



It is remarkable to me that Lindsey Graham says here unequivically that what President Bush and Vice President Cheney did with respect to torture and GITMO was not something borne out of rational thought. When he says these things were done out of fear that necessarily means that what they did was irrational. And he obviously knows what was done was wrong but tries to excuse it because Bush et al were afraid. Well I would love to see a murder suspect try to use that defense in court.

"Your honor I only killed that guy because I was scared someone else was going to kill me."

I am sure that would turn out fine.

But I once again raise the point Richard Clarke made the other day. If these people were operating out of fear, then why didn't they consult with people who weren't afraid about what kind of interrogations we should be engaging in and how we should be treating our detainees? We now know that at least one person, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, disagreed with some of these choices made out of fear and let them know he disagreed. Yet they allowed fear to overrule the courage of sticking to our values. And in the end they put the country at risk and for that they should be held accountable.

Montanans Aren't Cowards, Its Just That Their Congressional Representatives Are.

I had to put a fine line on what Gail Collins had to say in her excellent, snark filled column today. The NIMBY fears in Montana are obviously all about their Senators and Representatives in Congress, not about the citizens who put them there:

Instead, consider the case of Hardin, Mont., a community of 3,400 people just down the road from the place where Custer made his Last Stand.

Lately, things have not been going any better for Hardin than they did for the general. Unemployment is rife. “You go look at our downtown, there’s many closed businesses ... you’ll see drunks laying in the street. It’s not a pretty sight,” the head of the town’s economic development authority told National Public Radio. The town built a $27 million, 464-bed prison under the theory that other parts of the state would pay to have Hardin look after their problem residents. But it’s been empty since it was declared open for business nearly two years ago, and the construction loans are in default.

So, with the town council’s enthusiastic support, Hardin volunteered to take the Guantánamo prisoners.

It’s unlikely that the White House would have accepted the offer, but it was certainly an example of pluck and you’d think everyone would give Hardin three cheers. Instead, Montana’s Democratic senators went ballistic.

“We’re not going to bring Al Qaeda to Big Sky Country — no way, not on my watch,” said Max Baucus.

“If these prisoners need a new place, it’s not going to be anywhere near The Last Best Place,” said Jon Tester.

This shows us two things:

1) Montana has given itself many nicknames.

2) Montanans are more easily frightened than Manhattanites.

Think about it. New Yorkers live in the top terror target in the nation. This week four new would-be terrorists were arrested for plotting to blow up synagogues in the Bronx. On the same day, President Obama announced that the first Guantánamo prisoner to be tried in the United States would be coming to court in Lower Manhattan.

Even though it appears the guys involved in the Bronx case were deeply, deeply inept, this is still not the kind of news package you want to hear. But nobody had a fit over it. “Bottom line is we have had terrorists housed in New York before,” said Senator Charles Schumer.

I really believe that if someone were to go around and poll the citizens living in the vicinity of SuperMax prisons you would find that none of them are afraid of having GITMO detainees housed there. Its just that the bubble is so strong in the beltway that CongressCritters, espcially Democrats, are afraid that pulling the trigger will hurt them come election time. You see its not the citizens are afraid, its the lawmakers and that is a very dissappointing development.

More Weaksauce From Senate Democrats On GITMO

Greg Sargent talked to the aides for some Democratic Senators about closing GITMO and here is what they had to say.

The aides provide an interesting perspective on the fluidity of the situation, hinting at the extent of the breach that has opened up between the White House and Congressional Dems on this issue — and the extent of the work that will be required to repair that breach.

“Dems really want to work with him on this, but felt as though their flank was exposed,” is how one senior Democratic leadership aide put it. This aide said that the speech yesterday won’t do much to get Dems on board in the short term, barring “a detailed plan” from the White House on what to do with the detainees that will give cover to members of Congress to reconsider their opposition.

This aide predicts that a Department of Defense authorization bill coming up this summer is the most likely place where the issue will be revisited.

Another Democratic aide said that the burden is on Obama to move public opinion on the issue if he wants members of Congress on board. Members are relieved that the president is finally “out there with his bully pulpit,” this aide says. But she added: “Members will follow public opinion on this.”

First of all what public opinion polls are these idiots looking at? Every single one I have seen has a plurality that wants GITMO closed. But besides that what kind of cowards have we elected that they are going to follow public opinion rather than lead on this issue?! Hell I guess its a good thing Harry Reid and his minions weren't in the Senate back in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was up for a vote. If they were I would probably still be having to eat in the "black" section of restaurants. I don't know who is behind this coward ass bullshit but I do know that Harry Reid is the ring leader and its going to be my mission in life to get that idiot out of the Senate if they don't remove him as Majority Leader. There is no excuse to have the kinds of advantages we have now in Congress and hold the White House and still run around scared of our own shadow on National Security issues. If the Democrats in the Senate are too afraid of Republicans to close GITMO and house some detainees in SuperMax prisons then its high time we got some better damned Democrats elected in their place!

Can We Just Fire Harry Reid Already?

If you thought Congressional Democrats had changed their stripes just because President Obama got elected you would be wrong. The are still political cowards especially in the Senate where they are led by the perinnial bed wetter Harry Reid. I can't describe how frustrated and angry Reid's statement today on closing GITMO makes me. And the truth is this has nothing to do with he public good. It has everything to do with being too much of a pussy to get in front of the American people and fend of partisan attacks from Republicans about the "dangers" of putting GITMO detainees in American jails. Lets take a look at this dithering idiot's words.

Accepting the right wing’s baseless premise, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared in a press conference today, “We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.” In several tense back and forths with reporters, Reid said he opposes imprisoning detainees on U.S. soil, saying flatly, “We don’t want them around the United States”:

REID: I’m saying that the United States Senate, Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.

QUESTION: No one’s talking about releasing them. We’re talking about putting them in prison somewhere in the United States.

REID: Can’t put them in prison unless you release them.

QUESTION: Sir, are you going to clarify that a little bit? …

REID: I can’t make it any more clear than the statement I have given to you. We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.

Later, Reid repeated that he would not support Guantanamo detainees being transferred to U.S prisons..."

Update: After the press conference today, Reid's office released the following statement:

"President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Secretary Colin Powell, President Obama and I all agree – Guantanamo must be closed. President Obama’s approach is a responsible one. [...]

“The amendment Chairman Inouye has offered today recognizes that it would be premature for Congress to act before the Administration proposes its plan. I support his amendment. On two important points, however, we do not need to wait for any instruction – and there should be no misunderstanding. Let me be clear: Democrats will not move to close Guantanamo without a responsible plan in place to ensure Americans’ safety. And we will never allow a terrorist to be released into the United States.

“This amendment is as clear as day. It explicitly bars using the funds in this bill to ‘transfer, release or incarcerate’ any of the Guantanamo detainees in the United States. When the Administration closes Guantanamo, we will ensure it does so the right way.”

What a steaming pile of feckless cowardly bullshit! Who the fuck is really scared of people locked up in a supermax prison or a military facility? And yet here is Harry Reid giving Republicans and their fearmongering arguments all of the legitimacy they have never deserved and all in the interest of politics. Make no mistake about it this is just a political game of cover your ass. Its the same political game that gave us that shitty assed FISA bill last year so as to not "hurt Democratic chances in the election". Now that we have a damn near filibuster proof Senate and the Presidency and the House by a wide margin this muthafucka still doesn't have the balls to do the right thing instead of the most politically correct thing. If there are any Democrats who disagree with Harry Reid I hope they ring the bell loud and often and hopefully someone could challenge his dumb ass for the Majority Leader's seat. What fucking difference does it make to elect Democrats if at the first sign of Republicans attacking they fold like cheap lawn chairs?

Fucking unbelievable.


(h/t gunny)

Can't Stop, Won't Stop

Yet another fearmongering video from the GOP



Just as an experiment try watching it with the sound turned all the way down and then try not to get pissed at these assholes for using 9-11 for propaganda purposes.

Then turn the volume up but close your eyes and try to imagine cute puppies and kittens playing together.

The only thing scary about these ads are the music. I imagine the next GOP video on GITMO detainees will have the theme music from the "Saw" movies. Or maybe they can go old school and use the theme song to "Halloween".


Group Of Pussies

(h/t Ambinder)

Run For The HIlls!

This is pretty much the appropriate response to the GOP fearmongering these days. Great job Rachel.

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

And The Truth Shall Set You Free

I was all ready to type up a post slamming my home state of Tennessee's Governor Phil Bredesen for him joining the chorus of his fellow Republican Governers in opposition to the money for unemployment in the stimulus bill (and don't get me wrong I am still pissed off about that) when I came across a quote in this article from the Chatanooga Times that made me change my mind. You see Bredesen messed around and told the truth after Governors Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford held an impromptu news conference after meeting with President Obama yesterday with the rest of the governers around the country and trashed the stimulus bill. Here is what he had to say about that...

Gov. Bredesen took issue with some Republican governors who emerged from the National Governors Association meeting with Mr. Obama on Monday and criticized the stimulus package as wasteful, focusing mainly on the unemployment funding. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford led the criticism at an impromptu news conference outside the West Wing, as other governors looked on.

“I’m sorry the way this developed out here,” Gov. Bredesen said. “The conversation with the governors of South Carolina and Louisiana in the room, I would say, were more supportive and more conciliatory about these things than they were in front of the cameras here.”

So when these two jackasses were in the same room with President Obama they were gracious and then when they left the meeting they decided to stab him in the back. That just goes to show that the Republicans are full of it when they come to this debate and it also goes to show that these two in particular are nothing but cowards. Next time try saying it to his face.


(h/t MY)

Terrorsts On Trial In The US, Oh Noez

Stop the presses, shine the bat signal, somebody call John Boehner, get the Fox and Friends brigade ready, we are putting terrorists on trial in Miami......For the third time.

What A Bunch Of Cowards

Fox and Friends, fear mongering at its worst.