Politicizing intelligence was a bad thing when Bush did it, yes? So we are confident the reality-based community will be up in arms by the latest revelations in the Times. The background:
WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
The outrage:
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
The CYA backpedaling:
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
"The damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us". He is entitled to his opinion but the good people of the great city of Los Angeles may have a different view, seeing as how they are not walking past a crater where one of their skyscrapers was targeted in a plot disrupted by the enhanced interrogation program.
And if memory serves, Al Qaeda had no trouble recruiting for the Cole attack, the embassy attacks, and the 9/11 attacks back in the Days when we didn't "torture" (although Clinton outsourced that by way of rendition). In fact, Bin Laden believed that successful attacks aided his recruiting, as people flocked to "the strong horse, so deterring and disrupting attacks has both immediate and long term benefits.
Everyone has an opinion. The debate would be better informed if we had greater access to the underlying facts. The Times makes this very point in their conclusion:
The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: “I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.” But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked.
“Do you believe the C.I.A.’s interrogation detention program has been effective?” Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, asked him.
“I’ll have to look into that more closely before I can give you a good answer on that one,” Admiral Blair answered.
RETREAT TO OBFUSCATION: The Times engages in a bit of CYA as they cast about for a new storyline:
Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week to bolster that conclusion.
"Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah?" Hmm, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? This is from the recently released OLC memos as excerpted by Marc Thiessen:
Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.
And I infer that someone must have given a compelling backgrounder (or sent a brilliant blast-fax) just before deadline because the WaPo has a similar brain-locked "evaluation":
Obama's intelligence advisers have been scrutinizing the Bush-era interrogation policy since shortly after the election. The overarching conclusion is that the benefits are not clear-cut -- information was gained, but it is impossible to prove whether coercive measures were decisive, say senior administration officials who have participated in the review.
For example, interrogations of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, or Abu Zubaida, the CIA's first high-value detainee, helped its officials understand links between terrorist groups but did not lead directly to the disruption of al-Qaeda plots, according to former intelligence officials with access to intelligence reports. Many of the leads he provided were obtained before harsh methods were applied, the officials said.
CREATIVE COST CUTTING: I assume the Times is casting about for money saving ideas so here's one - I suggest they evaluate the amount of ink they coud save by shortening the motto they print every day from "All The News That's Fit To Print" to "Hail Obama". Brevity would be the soul of honesty.
The debate would be better informed if we had greater access to the underlying facts.
You may have missed the memo, but facts don't matter. Barack Hussein's election is proof enough of that.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 08:46 AM
Interesting to juxtapose the statement that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means" (my emphasis) and "they are not essential to our national security." The only way those two statements are consistent is if the information was not essential, only "high value." Seems like a very fine line to draw when lives are at stake.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 22, 2009 at 09:00 AM
Seems like a very fine line to draw when lives are at stake.
Or shows that these folks are fundamentally unserious. It's the "law enforcement" approach to terrorism coming back in vogue. You don't try to disrupt plots, you simply prosecute them after the fact. Good luck with that approach.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 09:05 AM
The memoes show that the reason that they resorted to enhanced interrogation was that they TRIED OTHER MEANS and it didn't get them anywhere.
And when KSM says "Soon you will know", that's about all the smoking gun you'll ever want.
So the "There is no way of knowing" stuff is ridiculous.
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 09:06 AM
Or shows that these folks are fundamentally unserious. It's the "law enforcement" approach to terrorism coming back in vogue. You don't try to disrupt plots, you simply prosecute them after the fact. Good luck with that approach.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 09:05 AM
Well, Obama praised the law enforcement model during the campaign. He specificly cited the prosecution of the inital World Trade Center bombers as a briliant success and how terror attacks should be delt with. Of course, that law enforcement model let the key planners get away, and then they came back again with 9/11. The logical conclusion here is that Obama sees 9/11 as a briliant success in counter terrorism.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 09:23 AM
"And if memory serves, Al Qaeda had no trouble recruiting for the Cole atack, the embassy attacks, and the 9/11 attacks. In fact, Bin Laden believed that successful attacks aided his recruiting, as people flocked to "the strong horse"."
Good point TM. It really ticks me off that their only real excuse is that it hurts our image abroad.
What they really mean is that the neo-marxist left in Europe who hates us anyway, and thought we deserved 911 doesn't like it.
Because if they really think that not using enhanced interrogation is somehow going to make the world a human rights utopia of sweetness and light, they are delusional.
I read some lefty say that some human rights abusers laughed at us and said that they had no reason to stop because the US "tortured" people. Funny, they never seem to name names though.
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 09:24 AM
I think the president thinks we deserved it Verner.
Posted by: Jane | April 22, 2009 at 09:29 AM
"The logical conclusion here is that Obama sees 9/11 as a briliant success in counter terrorism."
Well, he does think he's "pretty good" at being President, too.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 09:29 AM
A question, TM -- how do you resolve these sorts of problems you outline without some sort of Commission? (Don't call it a truth commission -- that term is loaded.)
It would seem someone like Cheney would, now, welcome a commission as a chance to get his side of the story (with a right to supporting documentation) out. If he woudn't, I wonder what his argument against it would be.
Also, isn't a sad state when the president has to say that he cannot trust "the political system" on an issue like this? And isn't it sadder, because he is absolutely right about that?
Just questions -- I'm not sure there is an ideal way to handle this situation. I think the leaks and threat of more leaks made the "clam up" option impossible. It also seems like the "limited hang out" option never seems to work.
If I were the lawyers who drafted these memos, I would be concerned now. Not so much because of the Justice Department, but because their state bar associations might consider whether disbarrment is in order over the advise they gave.
Personally, I'd just like a bunch of professional historians, rather than the usual batch of beltway wise men, turned loose on this issue, and have them issue a written report without public hearings, but internet access to their interviews once the report was concluded.(Oh, and all taped interviews would have to be conducted by someone trained by Brian Lamb.)
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 09:31 AM
He sat in a church with a man who for 20 years ranted and raved about the USKKKofA and shortly after 9/11 proclaimed "the chickens...have come home to roost...". I'd say Obama thinks we deserved it.
Picture this...waterboarding was not used on KSM. LA is hit, just as NY was. The...insert date to identify the LA hit..."truth" panel is convened to determine how Bush let it happen again. We find the CIA requesting to use waterboarding and the Bush administration denying them on legal grounds. Yep. The crazed left would be cheering that decision because "the damage we didn't do to our interests did not outweigh whatever benefit they gave us". The memo would be used to prosecute Bush for dereliction of duty. He was and always was in a no win situation. You doubt my scenario? Just remember the August pdb that said nothing but was used 24/7 to prove Bush "let it happen". They would have crucified him had LA been hit and he didn't use waterboarding to prevent it. The same people arguing against it as torture would be clammering that we use it on our military. That is how you decide if they are serious or just political nutjobs.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2009 at 09:37 AM
If your sense of self-worth is derived from being accepted by the leftist elite, then the loss of downtown LA isn't such a bad trade-off. If fact, it gives you some bonafides.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 22, 2009 at 09:40 AM
Dittos Sue
Posted by: PMII | April 22, 2009 at 09:42 AM
Also, isn't a sad state when the president has to say that he cannot trust "the political system" on an issue like this?
Yeah, except he doesn't mean it. What he means is, he can't push out the answer he wants by working within the political system, so he must go around it, kinda like the way he financed his campaign.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 09:44 AM
Yeah, except he doesn't mean it.
Since he can't really tell you it is all politics, he has to redirect that thought and hope those who drink his koolaid will catch on. They will, btw.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Obama is a disaster of biblical proportions for this country.
Posted by: bio mom | April 22, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Obama is a disaster of biblical proportions for this country.
Revelations proportions?
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 09:53 AM
Also, isn't a sad state when the president has to say that he cannot trust "the political system" on an issue like this? And isn't it sadder, because he is absolutely right about that?
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 09:31 AM
Hmmm... I wonder why that is?
Could it be that the Dems in congress deliberately planned to use the Senate Intelligence Committee to polically damage the Bush administration?
Could it be that the Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee refused to admit that Joe Wilson was a lying SoS who deliberately misled the public about his "mission" and it's outcomes?
Could it be that during the last presidential campaign one candidate actually stated outright that even if he had known the surge would work in Iraq, he would have voted against it because it was more important to beat George Bush than to win the war in Iraq?
Just wondering...
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 09:53 AM
I realize that I'm not that old. But, in my lifetime I've never seen a politician that frightened me. Barack Hussein and his band of merry goons do.
Oh, BTW, he signed the Obama Youth Corps bill yesterday.
Posted by: Pofarmer | April 22, 2009 at 09:55 AM
Sometimes I DREAM that the plane that hit the Pentgon, hit the Capital instead. WE ended up much better off. But it was only a dream.
Posted by: PMII | April 22, 2009 at 09:58 AM
Appalled, perhaps he'd be more trustful of the political system if he still considered himself to be the constitutional law professor he claimed to be during the campaign.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM
how do you resolve these sorts of problems you outline without some sort of Commission?
You don't resolve them because people believe what they want to believe. Commissions do nothing; look at the Warren Commission fer crissake!! How can you get more direct than "Who killed the President"? And they still arrived at a conclusion that produced extreme skepticism and did nothing to dispel the daft conspiracy mavens.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 22, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Ranger:
Actually, in my opinion, it would be a disaster because the Dems would not resist to conflate Abu Gharib with the situation we have here, would most certainly use it to damage Republicans and the reputations of as many GOP types as is possible, and would bring the ethos, consistancy, logic, sense of fairness of an Andrew Sullivan Trig Palin post to the process. (I think using Rev. Wright as my analogy is too hard on the Democrats.)
So, I think I disagree with you on some of your specifics, but agree with the tenor of your remarks.
Sue & Pofarmer:
Well, to bring a phrase from the last milennium, it depends on what the term "political system" means. I think Obama is sincere in not wanting Congressional hearings. i think he is leaning towards a 9-11 approach -- which of course -- is doing what the political system aleways does with "hard issues" -- punting the whol thing to a commission. And judging by the 9-11 commission, we could end up with televised hearing with low rent Perry mason theatrics, followed by a thick, unread report.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Dittos Sue
Me too.
Posted by: Jane | April 22, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Captain Hate:
The problem is that, without some kind of the commission, you have no mechanism for complete disclosure. I am sure you have no trust for the Obama administration to make a complete disclosure on their own volition. With a commission, there is a better chance of that.
But, trust me, I hear what your saying.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM
I can't wait for more hearings: So congress can tell me: What's torture? What's right? What's wrong? What causes global warming?
Posted by: PMII | April 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Pardon the typos, all.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM
BTW Appalled,
Aren't you appaled that team Barry engaged in exactly the kind of selective editing on intel matters that everyone on the left raised holy hell about over the last 8 years?
Last week, the DNI specificly stated in writing that waterboarding worked. Yet, the Obama flaks went out and made the argument that stopping waterboarding would have no impact on public safty because it didn't work anyway. Then, they deliberatly edited the controditory assessment from the memo writen by the DNI before releasing it. That sounds like they manipulated intel assesments for political reasons to me.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I am sure you have no trust for the Obama administration to make a complete disclosure on their own volition. With a commission, there is a better chance of that.
But, trust me, I hear what your saying.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Well, as this current situation on the editing of the DNI memo indicates, we have actual evidence that the Obama administration will not make complete disclosure, and will activly distort the truth for political purposes.
Also, there is no indicaiton that Dems will actually change their behavior just because the venue is a commission rather than any other forum. As Sandy "docs in his socks" demonstrated, Dems seem to have no problem stealing and destorying key evidence to sanitize the record and present a distorted image of their own past on national security issues, even ones as important as terrorism and 9/11.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Truth Commission=Show Trial
And have we ever considered that what they really might want is a seat on the 9th circuit?
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Ranger:
What Obama did was release some memos and hope the whole thing would go away because he admitted the US did some bad things. I think he hoped that he could skate by doing just that because the memo authors and Cheney would be relieved that they did not appear to be in legal jeapordy.
I think Obama's remarks were prompted by Cheney's comments to Hannity. Putting Cheney under threat of indictment means that he's got to go consult with lawyers, and the lawyers will tell him to shut up. And, yes, I am appalled by that. Cheney does have a right to defend himself.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Ranger and verner:
OK then -- how do you get the other side of the story out there in full and complete fashion?
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM
hope the whole thing would go away because he admitted the US did some bad things
No. Obama is trying to scold and shame the US into letting him be Our Big Nanny.
Fugetaboudit
Posted by: boris | April 22, 2009 at 10:32 AM
And another thing--Baker's piece claims that detainees were WBded 263 times.
It is utterly irresponsible not to clarify EXACTLY what this means.
The memos were quite clear in how much and how often they could Legally WB.
263 "pours" versus 263 "sessions" makes a real big difference in public perception.
And baker leaves the impression that it was the latter, even though KSM said 5.
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I think Don addressed some of this yesterday with his oxymoronic "managing the transparency" comment.
Appalled, I'll agree that a Commission could serve as a repository of pertinent data for future historians to use that might hopefully get beyond the spin of the moment. Still, I hate to badmouth the Warren Commission because I know and like somebody who worked on it, but they countermanded this by sealing certain documents.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM
how do you get the other side of the story out there
Too late. The time to have this out was back when 3000 murdered in flaming hell was a bigger number than 263 waterboardings.
This is vile and dishonest.
Posted by: boris | April 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM
After Jamie Gorelick sat on the commission instead of testifying before the commission, and did so without any irony involved on her or the left's part, I don't trust a commission as far as I can throw their sorry asses.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Well, Obama put himself in this truck f*ck by wanting it both ways. He wants credit for "restoring morality" from the left. At the same time, he wants to claim this decision will have no negative impact on national security rather than being honest and admiting that these methods work.
If he were an honest man, he would have said what he tried to admit without openly saying it at the CIA. That he is prohibiting these methods on moral grounds, even though he knows they work and have saved lives. That was the whole point of the "I know I've made your job harder" part of the speech. The problem here is that Obama has the polling data that says people in the US would rather be safe and waterboard a few hard core jihadis.
So, Obama lied in an effort to have it both ways, and in the end, he gets neither. His morality stance is destoryed by his lying, and he will be blamed when the next attack hits for knowingly making us less safe.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 10:37 AM
OK then -- how do you get the other side of the story out there in full and complete fashion?
Um, you don't get the whole truth with managed transparency.
The closest you're going to get to the truth is for Cheney to get his docs and make them public. And you should be pleased, that Obama's very own NSA chief has verified Cheney and Hayden's claims with his little redacted for public consumption memo.
Let the historians sort it out in 20 years.
Now, back at you--damage to public image is the ONLY argument that the virtuearians have standing, and what BLAIR used to CYA.
NAMES DATES PLACES.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 10:40 AM
I think Obama's remarks were prompted by Cheney's comments to Hannity.
Are you kidding me? Obama is reacting to remarks made by Cheney? He is either the most unsecure person ever born or he is a nitwit. Not sure which is worse, but it is entirely possible he is both.
Obama had been "studying" the release of those memos for 4 weeks prior to their release, if one can believe anything coming from an Obama spokesperson. I would imagine it was right about the time Cheney made his request for the release of classified documents. Obama was trying to get ahead of Cheney's book so he could control the message not react to the message. Cheney is the one that hurt himself by asking that they go ahead and make those documents public. His book will suffer if the story is already stale by the time it goes to print.
So don't tell me Obama is trying to do anything but keep the story on Bush/Cheney and their evils instead of on him and cozying up to dictators in SA.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2009 at 10:41 AM
After Jamie Gorelick sat on the commission instead of testifying before the commission, and did so without any irony involved on her or the left's part, I don't trust a commission as far as I can throw their sorry asses.
Sue, this was the moment when I realized that the Republican party was ultimately hopeless; when they couldn't be bothered to scream loud and long about changing this when it was first announced.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 22, 2009 at 10:43 AM
The debate would be better informed if we had greater access to the underlying facts.
The thing is that we're never really going to have good access to the underlying facts, because the underlying facts have sources and methods all over them.
Look, I can't give any details that would sharpen this example because it all was classified, and so far as I know still is, and unlike the people who talk to the NYT I'm kinda prissy about that. But during the Reagan Administration, there was a particular Soviet capability issue.
The Administration was saying that the USSR would have a particular capability in 3–5 years. The talking heads most quoted by the press were saying that Reagan was a militarist cowboy, and not only would the USSR not have that capability in 3–5 years, but they'd never have the capability, because that would be part of first-strike preparations and the Soviets had pledged no first strikes. And I was watching collections come in from operational tests of the capability the Administration said was 3–5 years out and the lefties said was impossible.
The Administration knew about the tests of course, since we did mail a postcard back to DC every so often. But to admit what we knew would mean that some very expensive and IMAO useful collection methods would have become a helluva lot less useful. And I suspect some of the critics in Congress knew, if not about the direct intelligence, at least about the summarized results; they either didn't believe them, or were cynically using the issue knowing that Reagan couldn't prove them wrong.
See also, the "missile gap" of the 1960 campaign. The Eisenhower Administration knew there was no missile gap; Kennedy almost certainly knew it as well, he was on the right committees and was a defense maven. But he could lie about it, knowing that Nixon couldn't defend the Administration with facts.
To some extent the same game is on here, except — it looks to me — the Obama folks have made a serious mistake by pissing off the CIA. Suddenly there are DNI memos leaking. Cheyney dialed it up a notch now by insisting Obama release the other intelligence; it will be interesting to see what they do.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Go Sue Go......
Posted by: PMII | April 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM
verner:
I think you are assuming that I have a position I don't necessarily hold. I'm not Don.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Perhaps the non-political commission of elders would display all the wisdom of the Iraq Study Group.
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Appalled- you know this, right:
"Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday."
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2009 at 10:47 AM
No doubt the residents of Hollywood USA, as well as, Los Angeles Obama Fan club are delighted America no longer interrogates in order prevent an attack upon Hollywood USA and heavily populated LA Obama fan club.
I am beginning to thinks this is Hollywood's block-buster way of combating imaginary Global Warming; let the enemy blast all human beings out of California, that will put an end to man-made disasters to be sure!
Actually with Hollywood USA blown to bits the rest of us will no longer suffer from Global Warming.
Posted by: syn | April 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Didn't we just start torturing with Booosh? So we could look at the difference in intelligence collection, right? This is why the left pee'd their pants that Cheney requested what is not supposed to exist - because there is NO terror threat, remember?
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | April 22, 2009 at 10:49 AM
MayBee:
Yeah, I saw that. If the Obama folks are going to play the game that way, I wish on them the same death by leaks the CIA applied to Bush a few years back.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM
"IF," Appalled?
This is the most political WH ever.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Well said ChaCo.
Obama made the mistake of thinking that because so many in the CIA are hard core Dems that support him, they wouldn't "fight back" to protect their interests. He fails to realize the folks at CIA have no more respect for him than they had for GWB. All presidents are just civilian amatures who should just shut up and let the pros at CIA do their job. Obama crossed the line here and he is going to pay for it.
His pathetic "we won't charge the interogators, but we might charge the lawyers" walkback just shifts the focus do DoJ. Now the DoJ people will be wondering if what they do today will be put before a prosecutor 4 years from now if the political landscape in DC changes radically in the next couple of election cycles.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Appalled, I know you're not Don. And the remarks were not directed towards you personally.
It's just that I was pointing out the "fact gap" on the left. They make broad assertions that are completely unsupported by any evidence and treat them like fact--while any inconvenient fact is nit picked and spun into oblivion.
You're never going to get a fair hearing from this bunch. They might pretend to be "purist" on torture, but their moral relativism would make Foucault blush.
The truth is whatever serves their interests and quest for power.
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 10:54 AM
We are so screwed. This is the predictable result when lawfare is substituted for warfare.
Posted by: Chris | April 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Charles Krauthammer agrees with me:
The administration has put out stories about how Obama agonized about the release of the documents. Well, if you were born yesterday, you'll believe that.
You look at the political expediency and the political objective of these leaks. Obama was elected by running against George Bush, even though he wasn't on the ballot. He has been running against Bush in the first 100 days. He ran against Bush when he was in Europe and in Trinidad. He's making himself the foil against Bush.
And you would expect that has to end after a few months. Well, with the torture issue, it doesn't end. It's a perfect way to keep Bush alive as the permanent nemesis and foil of Obama.
And what he's doing is by strategically releasing a memo here, a memo there, he creates a firestorm, which is all predictable, which is not going to end up in prosecutions. It will end up in a truth commission.
You will have all kinds of Congressional hearings. You will have all kinds of commissions. You will have leaks. You will have televised, very dramatic testimony.
This issue, the Bush issue, will be alive for a long time.
And the reason Obama is trying to look magnanimous in saying he won't prosecute the CIA officials is because, obviously, there is no way to prosecute an official who acted in good faith. And even their lawyers, who simply offered an opinion, you're going to [prosecute a] lawyer who simply offered an opinion?
The issue, I think, of prosecutions, is a side issue here. The real issue is the hearings, the commissions, and the leaks that we will have in the future.
Obama is all politics all the time.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Hey Chris, Po and I own the copyright on "We are so screwed". Please deposit $.25 in each of our PayPal accounts for each use.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM
No doubt a commision appointed under the Obama terror would end up looking like one of Waxman's Committees of Public safety.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 22, 2009 at 11:06 AM
More like Stalin 1936 PUK
Posted by: verner | April 22, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Ranger, you confirm what I've always taken to be the CIA's attitude regarding presidents. I'm stocking up lots of beer and popcorn for this battle because whoever loses, the country wins.
Posted by: Captain Hate | April 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM
bad:
If that's his calculaton, he'll lose his agenda in Congress.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Yes, and this is why the memos that show what we learned and what attacks were prevented will devistate the left's plan here. When people discover that waterboarding worked, and there there is a very real, and on-going terror threat to this country, the left's entire argument about Bush will collapse. He really was trying to protect America (and did) with the NSA program and enhanced interogation methods, and the left was actively trying to stop him from doing it.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Slow Roll Time at Langley?
RTWT.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Please deposit $.25 in each of our PayPal accounts for each use.
Hey, no quarter for the Obamas.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM
-Yes, and this is why the memos that show what we learned and what attacks were prevented will devistate the left's plan here.-
Just having Barry's DNI say waterboarding worked rid JOM of a veritable herd of bellowing trolls.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Agreed Charlie!
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Bill Gertz (via Hot Air):
Posted by: Elliott | April 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM
If that's his calculaton, he'll lose his agenda in Congress.
Appalled, I think the flaw here may be the word "calculation." I'm increasingly suspicious that there's almost no calculation or long-term thinking throughout the Obama Administration.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:18 AM
I owe you about $25 by now, then. You will become rich I tell ya.
Posted by: Chris | April 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM
OT: For those still following the SEAL saga, Gen. Jim Jones weighs in. He pretty much does away with the "raggie" guy. LUN
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM
The team was flown by transport aircraft and parachuted to waters near the warship, officials said.
Jeeez. Bainbridge is an Arleigh Burke, DDG-51 class ship with a lovely big landing desk aft. But do they take a helicopter? Noooo.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:23 AM
If that's his calculaton, he'll lose his agenda in Congress.
Obama is all politics all the time but that doesn't mean he is always smart or forward thinking in his political actions.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Sue, you are right on the money today.
I guess it's time to put to rest the notion that once Obama became privy to the hard facts about the ongoing terror threat to the country, he'd grow up and stop playing political games with intelligence.
Posted by: Porchlight | April 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Landing deck.
Although I'm sure it looks like a desk, trying to land on it in a crosswind.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Mr. Jones said he has firsthand experience of being on the military end of civilian involvement in a merchant ship seizure. He was a former Marine Corps officer in 1975 when his battalion was involved in the communist Khmer Rouge's capture of the merchant ship Mayaguez at the end of the Vietnam War.
Fourteen Marines were killed in an assault to free the Mayaguez, whose crew had been released from the vessel earlier.
"I've been on the end of an 8,000-mile[-long] screwdriver," he said. "I was really happy how this thing played out. All the operatives had all the top cover they needed. The risk assessment was done. The execution was spot on."
From the Washington Times article.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Porch, Sue always nails it, but get Cheney involved and she outdoes herself.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM
"Slow Roll Time at Langley?"
Reminiscent of the incorporation of the EU Convention on Human Rights into British law.
Now ,Britain cannot deport proven terrorists,who have to be provided with,at public expense,legal aid,housing and benefits.
Are the left stupid or simply surrendering?
Posted by: PeterUK | April 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM
"how do you resolve these sorts of problems you outline without some sort of Commission?"
What, exactly, is the "problem?" Which of the various commissions of the past are your favorites? The Kerner Commission? Warren commission? 9/11?
The solution to this "problem" is to shut up about it. Once you conclude that intelligence-gathering methods must be disclosed and debated publicly, then modified according to some political negotiating, you have ceded the field, and you are in trouble. Such methods may be admirable for virtuall every other issue of national policy, but historically they have not served us well at all when applied to the details of intelligence.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 22, 2009 at 11:35 AM
"Jeeez. Bainbridge is an Arleigh Burke, DDG-51 class ship with a lovely big landing desk aft. But do they take a helicopter? Noooo."
They don't have a helicopter with a range of 7,800 miles. They flew from Norfolk, VA in a C-17 for seventeen hours, and when they arrived on station they parachuted in close aboard USS Boxer. They swam to Boxer and were taken aboard; some time thereafter they proceeded to Bainbridge, probably by helicopter.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 22, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Porch, Sue always nails it, but get Cheney involved and she outdoes herself.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM
It isn't hard when you have integrity and a superior brain to work with. I'm speaking of Cheney, not me. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Let's analyze this in a little simpler form.
If we err to the side of not waterboarding terrorists and our country is attacked.
WE LOSE THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN LIVES.
If we err to the side of waterboarding and get zero information.
A terrorist got waterboarded.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
I'm very afraid for this country. Half of my fellow Americans are fucking morons.
Posted by: gus | April 22, 2009 at 11:43 AM
NRO today:
The release of the memos alone will serve to reinforce an ethos of timidity and inaction in the intelligence community. The message to agents asked to do dangerous things to keep our country safe is: “Even if you have a presidential assurance, legal license from the Department of Justice, and encouragement from the congressional intelligence committees, you may not be safe a month from now, a year from now, or whenever the climate of threat changes or power changes hands.” It’s probably what those agents suspected all along, even as they acted, regardless, out of a sense of duty. Now they know.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:44 AM
We were waterboarding to get detainees to say there was an al quieda/irag connection that would help justify the war.It's in the newly released memos.I think cheny's sudden interest in transparancy while ironic, will be helpful.
Posted by: ericTObb | April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Half of my fellow Americans are fucking morons
Hope they're using condoms.
Posted by: boris | April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Hope they're using condoms.
Posted by: boris | April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Oh dear, boris, bad is going to be so mad you beat her to that one. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Sure, DoT, but they could have flown to Kenya and changed to a helicopter. I'm sure they saved a half hour, even an hour.
They probably insisted on doing a HALO jump too.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Oh sue you are so right LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Half of my fellow Americans are fucking morons
We were waterboarding to get detainees to say there was an al quieda/irag connection that would help justify the war.
QED.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM
I'm sure you'd rather comment on my spelling than the content of my post.
Posted by: ericTObb | April 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Navy SEAL snipers had not arrived on board the Bainbridge at that time and therefore could not have fired on the pirates.
Seems to me that if Phillips is off the lifeboat, you don't need snipers to kill the pirates. I would assume the Bainbridge has guns that could have turned the lifeboat into a steaming pile of rubble in about two seconds.
Posted by: jimmyk | April 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
eric, I don't think that was a commentary on your spelling, but the content of your post.
But that's just me...
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 11:53 AM
DoT:
The problem is we are in a position that is less than ideal created by Obama choosing to release one side of the story. And even if the justice department does not decide to persue investigations, I don't know how the federal government prevents:
(1) Congress from exercising (or abusing) its constitutional oversight function; and
(2) Actors Obama can't control, such as state bar associations, from attempting to sanction the folks who wrote the memos that were released.
That means there is a compelling reason to release more than has been released, and people, like the never shy former Vice-President, will be pressing for this. But that release process has to be controlled somehow. I think if the Feds do it, nobody to the right of Harry Reid will believe that the release is complete or fair. A commission at least makes a release of complete information a possibility.
Posted by: Appalled | April 22, 2009 at 11:54 AM
"I'm sure you'd rather comment on my spelling than the content of my post."
I was torn,they are both equally peurile.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 22, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Maybe so....you can read about it here http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66622.html
Posted by: ericTObb | April 22, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Jeeez. Bainbridge is an Arleigh Burke, DDG-51 class ship with a lovely big landing desk aft. But do they take a helicopter? Noooo.
I'm no military expert, but isn't parachuting in a lot quieter and (if done in darkness) a lot less noticeable by the pirates?
Also, how far off shore can a helicopter go?
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Eric, isn't that old gossip?
It was already investigated and found wanting.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 12:04 PM
We were waterboarding to get detainees to say there was an al quieda/irag connection that would help justify the war.It's in the newly released memos.I think cheny's sudden interest in transparancy while ironic, will be helpful.
Posted by: ericTObb | April 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM
And all those questions about future attacks against the US were just to confuse them I take it?
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 12:05 PM
you can read about it here
Sure. Then they should have waterboarded them until they told us where they hid Iraq's WMD.
Posted by: boris | April 22, 2009 at 12:06 PM
On a related topic (via Drudge):
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1520295>The border for dummies
Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
Posted by: Ranger | April 22, 2009 at 12:10 PM
"In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack."
She means that "Right Wing Extremist" Mark Steyn.
Posted by: PeterUK | April 22, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Peter, he only did that trying to get to me without Jane and Clarice knowing.
Posted by: bad | April 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Nice piece on the intel flap by Peter Wehner at the Corner. LUN
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 22, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Hard right fantasists need to drop their illusions. Obama only ever promised no prosecutions for CIA operatives, he never promised immunity for the lawyers who wrote these opinions basically because he can't without usurping the functions of congress and the DOJ. That's reality. They should also beware the strategy of making Republicans the pro torture party although clearly a lot of people here think that's a good idea.
Posted by: JOHN | April 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM