History is Happening Now

The Orwellian craziness that George W. Bush has foisted upon this country was beaten back somewhat today when Eric Holder, Obama’s choice to be the next Attorney General, appeared for his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Whatever their views may be about the morality and/or effectiveness of torturing detained terrorists, most Americans are offended when they hear Bush and his spokespeople deny that the government has tortured detained terrorists.

Americans find it offensive to hear their politicians lie in an obvious, blatant way, and it is blatantly obvious to the vast majority of Americans that Bush and his spokespeople are deliberately lying when they claim that waterboarding is not torture. This ridiculous lie puts Bush’s right-wing supporters in the awkward position of having to either (a) repeat and defend Bush’s lie (and I’ve heard them do it on right-wing talk radio) or (b) acknowledge the truth but still defend Bush’s decision to lie as a morally acceptable decision. 

And our journalists are put in the awkward position of having to use pathetic phrases such as “harsh interrogation techniques” to avoid implicitly acknowledging what nearly everyone knows — that the president is lying. Like it or not, Bush’s lies don’t end with Bush himself — they spawn new lies throughout our media and culture, like an infection that quickly spreads.

I believe this is true everywhere: when politically powerful people lie, it makes it significantly harder for less powerful people to engage in an honest debate about what they want for their country — which is why tyrants constantly lie to their people.  The world George Orwell describes in his book, “1984,” is about a society where official government lying is so endemic that rational thought is effectively criminal.

Even if you think torture is acceptable and necessary, you must admit that Bush was leading our country in the direction of Orwell’s dystopia when he denied that his administration approved torture.

Eric Holder, Obama’s choice to be the next Attorney General, says waterboarding is torture. I let out a huge sigh of relief when I read this evening that Holder will publicly acknowledge the truth about our national torture policy, which means our policy-makers can begin to discuss waterboarding and other interrogation-related issues publicly without resorting to a bizzare, jargon-laden doublespeak. It means when Holder and other politicians use the word “torture,” we can assume they are speaking English, and not some absurd beaurocratic language they invented to avoid telling the truth.

From the Politico:

Holder’s unambiguous answers on torture stood in contrast those given by Michael Mukasey – then President Bush’s attorney general nominee — a year ago, when he repeatedly dodged questions about the legality of waterboarding.

Holder did not. When Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said Thursday that he considered the practice to be torture, Holder did not equivocate. “I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.”

Holder also rejected the argument made by Bush administration officials that the president’s power in a national emergency overrode constitutional restrictions.

“No one is above the law,” Holder said.

Holder’s admission came only a few days after the absurdity of the Bush Administration’s lying became especially hard to handle, when the Washington Post reported this:

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”

“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani’s health led to her conclusion. “The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge” to call it torture, she said.

Living in a world where that article goes to press and then Bush and Co. continue to insist that they do not torture — would be unbearable for anyone who values honest public debate. So Obama and Holder are clearly leading our country out of the craziness of the Bush years, and not a moment too soon.

But it seems they cannot lead us all the way.

I’m glad to live in a world where rational thought is NOT criminal — and I plan to exercise my freedom by thinking this:

If waterboarding is torture, and if George Bush (or somebody who worked for George Bush) approved waterboarding, then George Bush (or somebody who worked for George Bush) approved torture.

And if approving torture is illegal, then George Bush (or somebody who worked for George Bush) broke the law.

And if the purpose of having an Attorney General is to enforce the law through criminal prosecutions, then isn’t it the Attorney General’s PURPOSE to prosecute George Bush (or somebody who worked for George Bush) for approving torture? Isn’t that why we have an Attorney General?

Some might argue that the President is above the law due to his extremely high office, and can’t be prosecuted by the Attorney General. But Obama clearly doesn’t accept that excuse — he has said repeatedly that “no one is above the law,” when asked about Bush’s torture policy. But Obama has also implied — without actually explicitly saying — that Holder won’t prosecute Bush officials for torture.

It seems that while Holder didn’t weigh in specifically on the question of whether to prosecute Bush officials for ordering torture, he did indicate that he isn’t inclined to do so:

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) asked whether Holder would authorize criminal prosecutions of Bush Justice Department lawyers who approved “extraordinary redition” and the warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

“We don’t want to criminalize policy differences that may exist between the outgoing administration” and the incoming Obama administration, Holder said.

Holder’s view echoes that expressed by President-elect Barack Obama, who has so far indicated that he is not interested in pursuing such investigations.

So it seems we still live in a country where rationality still doesn’t reign supreme. But a half-sane world is better than nothing — and the benefits of accepting a half-portion of insanity for a few more years may outweigh the costs.

Why didn’t America win in Vietnam? As I understand it, we killed about 3,000,000 Vietnamese in that war, and the Vietnamese killed about 60,000 American troops. So we killed roughly 50 Vietnamese for every 1 American soldier killed. And yet, the Vietnamese kept fighting, and eventually the American public was forced to recognize that we had “lost” the war.

In my view, we lost because our strategy was flawed — our strategy was based on the idea that we could force the North Vietnamese to accept defeat. Ultimately, it was up to the North Vietnamese to decide whether or not to accept defeat — and so we could never win until they conceded. Our goal was to break their will to continue fighting, and it was a goal we were incapable of achieving, no matter how many Vietnamese we killed, no matter how many bombs we dropped.

Consider the following from an article about released audiotaped recordings of President Lyndon Johnson’s conversations, including a conversation with Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara:

Johnson asked McNamara about the defense budget and supply shortages. McNamara told him there were shortages of a “new rifle” called the M-16, and shortages of some ammunition and rounds used to illuminate areas for night fighting. But McNamara said there were plenty of bombs — 265,000 tons of them, either in Southeast Asia or on the way.

“Frankly, we’re going to just snow the place under with bombs,” McNamara said. “And I’m doing it purposely to make them cry, `Stop.’”

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. (Please forgive the cliche.) Similarly, you can lead an enemy to the point where you believe they will feel compelled to accept defeat — but if they don’t, then what have you accomplished? McNamara thought he could “make them cry, ’stop,’” but he couldn’t. And so 3,000,000 Vietnamese and 50,000 Americans were killed without any benefit to the United States.

In a roundtable discussion of the current Israeli-Palestinian war in the Gaza strip on the NPR program, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, Washington Post columnist and editor David Ignatius outlined a similarly flawed strategy, this time being implemented by the Israelis.

IGNATIUS: To me, the Gaza episode has illustrated, again, the essentials of the impasse in the Middle East. The Israelis faced a real security problem in the rockets that were being fired from Gaza. Hamas had agreed to cease fire that expired Dec. 19 and refused to renew it. The rockets began to launch again into Israel, and the Israelis decided to take very decisive action. The problem is, once you begin these things — and this is what we saw in Lebanon in 2006, what I saw in Beirut in 1982, long ago, when I was a correspondent there — once you start these things, how do you stop them? What are the terms under which you end them? And the Israelis are seeing in this instance, as in the past, that a decisive resolution to this kind of fight is almost impossible, because of international opinion, because of the danger of civilian casualties, a whole series of reasons. So you end up, looking for, at the end of the day, a cease-fire. And that’s where we are now. And the dickering is over when the cease fire should come, and can the Israelis get inclusion of some tough measures to reduce the flow of weapons into Gaza.

ASHBROOK: But Israel went in here saying, clearly indicating that its goal was more than, you know, some churning around and then a cease-fire –

IGNATIUS: Yes, it said that, Tom, but I think the point I want to make is that, that kind of decisive resolution that people talk about is not realistically possible. The Israeli Interior Minister, Meir Sheetrit, in the first days of this, said something that I found haunting. He said, “We’re going to continue this until we break the will of the Palestinians to continue to target us.” If there’s one thing that we’ve learned in this conflict, it’s that breaking the will of the other side just doesn’t work. People keep talking in those terms, but it doesn’t happen. So you end up having to settle for halfway things that patch together a new version of the status quo ante. That doesn’t make Israelis happy. Certainly, the fighting has not made Palestinians happy. I think, for Obama, the events of the last two weeks show that a decisive, new American approach to these things — I’m talking about a new approach to the Middle East, it sounds like a hopeless task — but somehow, breaking out of the lanes in which everybody is stuck, is crucial.

Setting aside the issue of whether the war in Gaza is moral or justified, there remains the crucially important question of whether the war can achieve anything for the security of the Israeli people. Do Israelis seriously believe they can accomplish the goal of “breaking the will” of the Palestinians? Is this what the Israeli people are waiting for? Are they not concerned that a new round of horrible violence in Gaza will only harden the will of a new generation of Palestinians to fight the Israelis?

If so, the Israelis are destined to lose, and this loss will leave them in a weaker position than before the war began.

(UPDATE: Thanks to the New York Times for this editorial.)

If you want to make certain that the Central Intelligence Agency won’t torture anymore, the obvious thing to do is to hire somebody to run the CIA who opposes torture in strong terms.

According to the New York Times, the President-elect is about to appoint former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA. Some top Democrats are now choosing to stab their president-elect in the back by publicly making the absurd assertion that Panetta was qualified to be former President Clinton’s top staffer, but somehow isn’t qualified to run one government agency.

I believe now is an important time for those of us who hate torture and want changes in the CIA to send a loud and clear message to the complainers: SHUT UP!

Regarding Panetta: Here is what he had to say last year about torture, as reported in the New York Times:

“Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly last year. “But that is a false compromise.” He also wrote: “We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”

The article continues:

Some human rights groups praised the choice. Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, said it was important that the new C.I.A. director be someone “who recognizes that torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive.”

Sounds good. But apparently Panetta’s background troubles some Democrats:

Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.

“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.

A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.

Ms. Feinstein’s Republican counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said he would be “looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”

It was not clear whether the skepticism would become an obstacle to the nomination of Mr. Panetta, who would succeed Michael V. Hayden, a retired Air Force general with decades of intelligence experience.

Let’s make it clear that this skepticism will NOT become an obstacle to the nomination of Panetta. And furthermore, I think the Obama administration should make it a rule to avoid notifying Senator Feinstein of anything whatsoever from now on. Maybe then she’ll have no choice except to consider what’s best for the country, rather than what’s best for her own political stature, when she evaluates matters this important.

I also have two words for the intelligence “experts” who want to perpetuate the self-serving illusion that their work is shrouded in magic and mystery:

But some intelligence experts called the selection underwhelming, given the important role the C.I.A. plays in disrupting terrorist attacks against the United States.

“It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written extensively on intelligence matters.

“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”

As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta would report to Mr. Blair. Neither choice has yet been announced.

How many American and Iraqi lives have been lost in just the past eight years (not to mention the countless millions who have lost their lives in recent decades) due to stupid, inexcusable blunders by the CIA? The difference between intelligence policy and tax or transportation policy is that intelligence officials are never held accountable until their stupid mistakes become so outrageously destructive that they can’t be concealed any longer. (Whereas bad tax policy and bad transportation policy are often publicly apparent.)

Remember George Tenet’s “slam dunk” rationalization for invading Iraq? Did he “hit the ground running?” If so, I’m desperate for a different metaphor. I’m also desperate for a CIA cheif who reads breifing books and asks smart questions … and answers to the president.

Those who find the choice “puzzling” should consider the New York Times’s explanation for the appointment:

The choice of Mr. Panetta comes nearly two weeks after Mr. Obama had otherwise wrapped up his major personnel moves. It appears to reflect the difficulty Mr. Obama has encountered in finding a candidate who is capable of taking charge of the agency but is not tied to the interrogation and detention program run by the C.I.A. under President Bush.

Aides have said that Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. director with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In other words, all the “qualified” candidates for the job are so tainted by their willingness to go along with Bush’s idiotic torture policy that appointing any of them would only reinforce the idea that our intelligence officials care more about emulating Jack Bauer than about protecting this country. To make a break with our disgusting past — and restore public trust in the CIA — Obama had to pick someone outside the intelligence community. So they picked a former White House Cheif of Staff — which is a very serious job.

Here is how the Times describes Panetta’s background:

As President Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years, Mr. Panetta regularly attended daily intelligence briefings in the Oval Office, and he has a reputation in Washington as a skilled manager and power broker with a strong background in budget issues. But he has little direct intelligence experience, and did not serve on the House Intelligence Committee during his 16 years in Congress.

Screw the House Intelligence Committee, which has not served us well. Screw “direct intelligence experience,” which recent history proves is not what it’s cracked up to be.

Now is a moment when Democrats have to decide whether they want real change, or more of the same. And to coin a phrase from Stephen Colbert, Sen. Feinstein is on notice.

UPDATE: Here is some more about Sen. Feinstein:

Talking to reporters earlier on Tuesday, Feinstein had said that failing to seat Burris would call into question the validity of “gubernatorial appointments all over the country.”
…

Feinstein votes overwhelmingly with her party, but she has broken with her Democratic colleagues on some controversial issues. In 2007, she infuriated liberals back home by helping the GOP advance the nomination of Leslie Southwick for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. And she drew wrath again from the left when, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, she joined Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in voting to confirm Michael Mukasey as attorney general despite his equivocations on whether waterboarding is torture.

With Obama in the White House and Democrats holding a big majority in the House, Republicans may need help from centrists such as Feinstein to stop Democratic legislation from moving through the Senate. Republicans say Feinstein is at the top of their list of potential Democratic defectors.

“She’ll take political heat to find common ground,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “I think she’ll be one of the key players in this Congress, quite frankly.”

….

On Tuesday, as Reid and other Democratic leaders were struggling to contain the spectacle of Burris’ arrival at the Capitol, Feinstein seemed to criticize the Illinois secretary of state for refusing to sign Burris’ appointment papers — and Senate Democrats for acting as if the lack of a signature actually mattered.

“I can’t imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial appointment,” Feinstein said. “The question, really, is one, in my view, of law. And that is, does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes.

“Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no, until certain things happen.”

Feinstein has communicated her views to Reid, who reminded Politico that Feinstein previously signed a letter saying that the Democratic Caucus would not seat anyone appointed by scandal-plagued Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Why would Feinstein sign a letter saying the Democratic Caucus wouldn’t seat a Blogojevich appointee, and then turn around and make ridiculous arguments for allowing a Blogojevich appointee to take his seat? Why would she say anything newsworthy and/or controversial about the absurb Blogojevich scandal when the Senate is about to begin work on saving the global economy, withdrawing from two wars, etc? And why did she vote to confirm Michael Mukasey?

There’s a simple explanation: Because she’s an incompetant longtime incumbent Senator who should be removed. I’d like to start sending money to a woman who can challenge her in the Democratic Senate Primary when it comes around again? Anybody know of someone to whom I should be sending my checks?