I'm the Republican Hater-I use this term somewhat tongue in truth; my point really is that 'I'm not David Brooks' where it doesn't matter what policy or proposal you talk about: it must be good if it's 'bipartisan'.
Of course, both parties can be on the wrong side of an issue. Take California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's bombshell report on the use of torture by the CIA practiced in the early Bush years after 9/11. There was a good deal of bipartisan opposition to the report's release. Does that make such opposition right?
I just listened to a very powerful speech by Senator McCain, Of course, I voted against him in 2008 and disagree with him on most issues and often don't like him more than any other Republican but today he gave such an important speech on the report that nobody could have said better.
That McCain himself was a Vietnam POW for 5 years only makes his words all the more poignant and powerful. As he said this was contrary to our values and doesn't do any good. That's really the 3 legged stool of this scandalous episode.
1. It's contrary to our values
2. It didn't work in terms of giving us actionable intelligence against terrorists and terrorist activity.
3. The torture program was done without the knowledge of Congress-indeed, it was done with the expressed purpose of misleading Congress which, by definition, is a crime.
It's important to realize that not only was the torture program of the CIA at this time-waterboarding, et. al-morally repugnant, this report also shows it was ineffective.
It's ironic that I've been doing a lot of reading about the Bush-Cheney Administration lately-I'm on my third straight book about their relationship-which is a fascinating question-and this breaks now, bringing Cheney back out of the woodwork.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/dismissing-senate-report-cheney-defends-cia-interrogations.html
Cheney feels that the report is 'a bunch of hooey' though he admits he didn't read it. Actually, according to this report the CIA kept much of their practices during this time secret from the White House as well. Some former Bush officials thought they should have hid behind that-after all, if the CIA hid info from the WH how can they be sure that everything was above board? According to the report Bush himself wasn't briefed about this until 2006.
Of course Bush will have none of it and rushes in to defend the CIA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/dismissing-senate-report-cheney-defends-cia-interrogations.html
One of the many things I didn't like about Bush is that he's a True Believer. See, I don't necessarily judge hypocrisy as harshly as many do. I mean sometimes I feel someone is saying something so absurd that I'd respect them more if they are knowingly lying than honestly believing such nonsense. Bush's True Believer routine here may be working against his self-preservation.
What I have gotten from reading about Cheney is that this guy harbors a basically absurdly paranoid worldview, He came of age in the time of McCarthy when children hid under desks as a drill for when a Soviet nuclear strike hits.
He was not at all pleased with the end of the Cold War-which is strange reaction, after all, supposedly we won, shouldn't you be happy after you win?-and was pretty relieved when the War on Terror supplanted the Cold War. Remember, this is a guy who used to run exercises underground during the 80s where he and some friends would simulate what would happen if there were a nuclear attack on the US.
It's interesting to note that in his simulation he would not bring Congress back after an attack.
On the one hand, if the Bushies weren't such True Believers they might be smart to at least suggest it's possible that they didn't know everything the CIA was doing. Of course, while it seems likely Bush didn't know everything even if he claims he did and claims so in his book Decision Points.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B003F3PK5Y
Still, if anything, it's not at all hard to believe that Cheney did know. I mean, I kind of assume that he was the one writing their policy at that time. He regularly would crash CIA headequarters and push his-somewhat hysterical-view. So maybe he did as he did keep in very close contact with them and maybe he even pushed them in this direction.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty in favor of security don't deserve either. Cheney is clearly not a Ben Franklin man as he believes liberty is pretty unimportant and shabby next to security as he imagines it.
I think overall, this is a proud day for American if also a very sobering one. As Fareed Zakaria said after McCain's speech, this was the Senator's finest hour. FZ also tells us that when he was a young man in India that if anything the US was admired after releasing the Church Committee report. As he says, what other country would engage in such self-criticism?
Of course, both parties can be on the wrong side of an issue. Take California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein's bombshell report on the use of torture by the CIA practiced in the early Bush years after 9/11. There was a good deal of bipartisan opposition to the report's release. Does that make such opposition right?
I just listened to a very powerful speech by Senator McCain, Of course, I voted against him in 2008 and disagree with him on most issues and often don't like him more than any other Republican but today he gave such an important speech on the report that nobody could have said better.
That McCain himself was a Vietnam POW for 5 years only makes his words all the more poignant and powerful. As he said this was contrary to our values and doesn't do any good. That's really the 3 legged stool of this scandalous episode.
1. It's contrary to our values
2. It didn't work in terms of giving us actionable intelligence against terrorists and terrorist activity.
3. The torture program was done without the knowledge of Congress-indeed, it was done with the expressed purpose of misleading Congress which, by definition, is a crime.
It's important to realize that not only was the torture program of the CIA at this time-waterboarding, et. al-morally repugnant, this report also shows it was ineffective.
It's ironic that I've been doing a lot of reading about the Bush-Cheney Administration lately-I'm on my third straight book about their relationship-which is a fascinating question-and this breaks now, bringing Cheney back out of the woodwork.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/dismissing-senate-report-cheney-defends-cia-interrogations.html
Cheney feels that the report is 'a bunch of hooey' though he admits he didn't read it. Actually, according to this report the CIA kept much of their practices during this time secret from the White House as well. Some former Bush officials thought they should have hid behind that-after all, if the CIA hid info from the WH how can they be sure that everything was above board? According to the report Bush himself wasn't briefed about this until 2006.
Of course Bush will have none of it and rushes in to defend the CIA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/world/dismissing-senate-report-cheney-defends-cia-interrogations.html
One of the many things I didn't like about Bush is that he's a True Believer. See, I don't necessarily judge hypocrisy as harshly as many do. I mean sometimes I feel someone is saying something so absurd that I'd respect them more if they are knowingly lying than honestly believing such nonsense. Bush's True Believer routine here may be working against his self-preservation.
What I have gotten from reading about Cheney is that this guy harbors a basically absurdly paranoid worldview, He came of age in the time of McCarthy when children hid under desks as a drill for when a Soviet nuclear strike hits.
He was not at all pleased with the end of the Cold War-which is strange reaction, after all, supposedly we won, shouldn't you be happy after you win?-and was pretty relieved when the War on Terror supplanted the Cold War. Remember, this is a guy who used to run exercises underground during the 80s where he and some friends would simulate what would happen if there were a nuclear attack on the US.
It's interesting to note that in his simulation he would not bring Congress back after an attack.
On the one hand, if the Bushies weren't such True Believers they might be smart to at least suggest it's possible that they didn't know everything the CIA was doing. Of course, while it seems likely Bush didn't know everything even if he claims he did and claims so in his book Decision Points.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B003F3PK5Y
Still, if anything, it's not at all hard to believe that Cheney did know. I mean, I kind of assume that he was the one writing their policy at that time. He regularly would crash CIA headequarters and push his-somewhat hysterical-view. So maybe he did as he did keep in very close contact with them and maybe he even pushed them in this direction.
Benjamin Franklin once said that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty in favor of security don't deserve either. Cheney is clearly not a Ben Franklin man as he believes liberty is pretty unimportant and shabby next to security as he imagines it.
I think overall, this is a proud day for American if also a very sobering one. As Fareed Zakaria said after McCain's speech, this was the Senator's finest hour. FZ also tells us that when he was a young man in India that if anything the US was admired after releasing the Church Committee report. As he says, what other country would engage in such self-criticism?
No comments:
Post a Comment