[Welcome knitters. Getcherself an account and educate us about knitting…]

Although watching her is like reading her thesis, about like a hangnail only worse  Read more 

Last week a remarkable truth emerged - we need to have a torture debate. On Friday the President admitted that we are now a state sponsor of torture and an amazing thing happened: Nothing. TV news coverage was dominated by the Democratic primary, and if news outlets acknowledged it at all it was in a summary or somewhere in the back pages. I am on record with my deep revulsion for torture, but a critical mass of our upper political and media levels does not consider it worthy of sustained focus.  Read more 

Fucking torturers. And we’re all complicit. Rather, as I’m sure Arthur Silber has said or is saying — I can’t read Silber without wanting to hang myself, so I don’t — we’ve always been complicit, it’s just that Bush forced us to know that we are.  Read more 

Torture Architect John Yoo Hypocritically Blasts Democratic Party For Violating Constitution’s Intent

Via the indispensable Avedon Carol.

From today’s Presidential Radio Address:

Where do we start?  Read more 

A May 2005 report by Lieutenant General Kevin Kiley confirms that each interrogation at Guantánamo was videotaped. Lieutenant General Randall Schmidt issued a report the following month stating that more than 24,000 interrogations of detainees took place at Guantánamo over a three-year period. In the meantime, the Bush administration has announced it will pursue the death penalty for six detainees who will stand trial for crimes related to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Professor Mark Denbeaux, Director of the Center for Policy and Research at Seton Hall Law, commented, “Our students proved that Guantánamo interrogations were videotaped, which impacts the impending trials of the six detainees. We all want to see the perpetrators of 9/11 punished. But if the tapes of those interrogations still exist, it is imperative that we understand, before these trials start, whether the information was obtained through standard interrogation procedures or through torture.”

Why videotape a torture session?  Read more 

What follows is a post I wrote some time ago, shortly after Bush’s 2nd Inaugural. I thought it might be worth reposting on this particular day, since it includes a comparison of both Lincoln and Truman to Bush, and seeks to discuss political rhetoric and its discontents. I also thought it might be a pleasant respite from our current obsession with the Democratic Presidential primary, as well as offering a frame for contemplating the ruin Bush’s second terms has wrecked not only on the country, but on his own likely historical reputation.

Dubya’s Dubious Second Inaugural:The Bad Faith Of George W. Bush

Four years ago, at the time of Bush’s 1st Inaugural Address, despite the bitterness left behind by the manner in which the 2000 presidential election was decided, despite the “winner’s” inability to find a graceful way to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances that had brought him to the Presidency, or even an ungraceful way, swept up in the grandeur of that peaceful transfer of power without which no democratic republic can long endure, I was able to acknowledge the surprising power of some of Bush’s rhetoric, and to feel some hope that he actually meant some tiny fraction of what he was saying.

Nunca mas, as they have had occasion to say in Argentina.

Bush made it easy last Thursday; everything about his second inaugural address, its grandiosity, its simple-minded diction and biblical intimations, the insistent refusal to acknowledge complexity, its wildly overstated and pitifully under-defined ambitions, its ahistorical smugness, struck me as downright preposterous, which will explain my amazement at the credulity with which the speech was received; yes, there were some reservations expressed at the practical implications and applicability of such a pure statement of American idealism, but rather less comment willing to point out that the speech’s efficacy as a statement of policy could be measured in inverse proportion to its almost demented insistence that ideas exist in some ethereal space untouched by anything as gritty and unpleasant as a fact.

Instead, once again we were asked to wonder at the poetic eloquence of Michael Gerson’s prose, and if we happened to be liberals, admonished not to get too picky about the fathoms-deep divide between Bush’s rhetoric and the reality of his policies, lest we peg ourselves, once again, as outside the great and grand ideas upon which our republic stands.

Chris Suellentrop, for instance, writing in Slate, parses the speech to bolster his own praise for it as a wonderful piece of oratory, credits it with announcing a second Bush doctrine, (the first, preemptive war, this second, the peaceful pursuit of democracy everywhere, and nary a hint the two doctrines might contradict one another), then proceeds to question the validity of the speech’s central thesis, which strikes Chris as being as simple-minded as the formulation by “some” on the left, that 9/11 was caused by poverty, and then finishes by warning liberals — well, unlike Mr. Suellentrop, I shall let him speak for himself:  Read more 

Southern Beale beats me to it:

Just to remind everyone about what’s at stake in November, we have these pearls of wisdom from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to determine where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited in the constitution?” he asked.

“It would be absurd to say you couldn’t do that. And once you acknowledge that, we’re into a different game.”

Oh wow! I saw that episode of “24,” too! Yeah, that was so cool how Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles by smacking that …. oh, wait. That was a TV show.

Never mind.  Read more 

Via Digby:

Delahunt: You said if an opinion was rendered, that would insulate him from any consequences.

[Mike Mukasey, Attorney General of the United States, before the House Judiciary Committee today]: We could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a justice department opinion.

…

Delahunt: If that opinion was inaccurate and in fact violated a section of US Criminal Code, that reliance is in effect an immunity from any criminal culpability.

MM: Immunity connoted culpability. [Well, is anyone culpable? -scar]

…

Delahunt: I find that a new legal doctrine. The law is the law.  Read more 

[Welcome Drunk Report readers.]

I swear I’m not making this up! And it saddens me, just a little, truly. I would have thought that McCain, having been tortured, would be the very last Republican candidate to throw his hat in this particular ring:

But doggone it—hat tip to alert reader muttley66—once again I just wasn’t cynical enough.

Follow me to the grand guignol below:  Read more 

[Welcome, Digby and C&L readers!]

Yesterday, we asked the question:

How, exactly, did Mike Huckabee’s son David kill that dog?

(To be fair, there was a second Scout involved in the killing with Huckabee; we’ll get to that below.) And, based on the contemporaneous accounts, we gave what we thought was the best answer.

Today, Newsweek’s Michael “Spiky” Isikoff tackles the Huckabee dog-killing story. Using the enormous reportorial resources of the Washington Post operation, he adds some interesting data points, but he circles round the real question which is, again:

How, exactly, did Mike Huckabee’s son David kill that dog?

With that, let’s look at how Spiky moved the story forward, starting with the fact that Huckabee seems to be running Arkansas like a personal fiefdom for the benefit of his family members* instead of like, you know, an actual state of the Union governed by the rule of law:  Read more 

Welcome, I heart Huckabee readers! Welcome, Planet Romney readers!

Here’s the barebones story of how 17-year-old Mike Huckabee’s son, David, and 18-year-old Clayton Frady killed a dog when they were Boy Scouts, and got fired for it.* From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in 1998 (as quoted in DogBlog):

[David Huckabee,] the younger son of Gov. Mike Huckabee and another teen were fired last month from jobs at a Boy Scout camp after the killing of a stray dog.

So, why were they fired? For violating Scout Law.

Marcal Young of Texarkana, scout executive of the Caddo Area Council that operates the camp where the dog was killed, said this week that two boys violated a Scout law, “A Scout is kind.”

So, how and why did David Huckabee (and Clayton Frady) kill the dog?  Read more 

At the very end of Froomkin’s chat yesterday, there is this little gem:

Stony Brook, N.Y.: Everybody seems to accept the claim that the CIA tapes were destroyed. Given the long history of deceptions by this administration, shouldn’t we ask for proof, or at least sworn statements to that effect?

Dan Froomkin: A good point. And consider this. Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball write in Newsweek: “At one point portions of the tapes were electronically transmitted to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., so a small number of officials there could review them. A counterterrorism source, who also asked for anonymity when discussing this subject, said that there was no reason to believe that any recordings of such an electronic feed still exist.”

No, no, of course not. No reason whatever. (Except that, as we know from the Stasi and, say, Guatemala, totalitarian regimes hang onto all their data.)

And who knows the dataflows? Where the data goes, its nature and volume, its timing, and who has privileges to see it? The techs. Could we talk to them, please? Didn’t we get good results when we talked to Alexander Butterfield?  Read more 

Larisa Alexandrovna:

We are told that the CIA tapes were destroyed in 2005. Now, what tapes are these DOJ lawyers examining in September and October of 2007? Please take a look at this memo, HERE, do you see anything that says that the tapes were a). destroyed and b). in 2005?

I am sure someone has a logical answer to this. I am, unfortunately, not that person. Anyone?

Simple. The tapes were destroyed, but not before Li’l Boots had ’em made into a DVD for Uncle Dick’s Xmas present.

And no, I do NOT have the primary reference for that assertion.

Via John Cole:

Donnell Williams had just gotten out of the bath tub, wearing only a towel around his waist, when he turned the corner to see guns pointing right at him.

“I ain’t never been so scared,” says Williams.

Police forced entry into Williams home while responding to a shooting, but it turned out to be a false call. They had no idea at the time the call wasn’t real and that Williams is hearing impaired. Without his hearing aid he is basically deaf.

“I kept going to my ear yelling that I was scared. I can’t hear! I can’t hear!”

Officers were worried about their own safety because at the time it appeared Williams was refusing to obey their commands to show his hands. That’s when they shot him with a Taser.

Okay, so, I can understand what happened here. They thought they were dealing with a guy with a gun. Training, etc, etc. I’ve got one problem with this defense, though:  Read more 

No se puede saber por qué.  Read more 

His name is Colby Vokey.

(Sorry for the triple redundancy in the headline.)

Another “Justice” Department operative wants to spend more time with his family—until Bush puts him on the Federal bench for life, that is:

Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler, who oversaw the Bush administration’s lengthy legal fight over the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, announced his resignation Thursday as head of the civil division.

President Bush nominated Keisler for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but the Senate has not acted on the nomination.

The Dems shouldn’t be moving any Bush nominations at all until Bush completely complies with all outstanding requests for information, and all outstanding subpoenas, but anybody who helped Bush enable torture should be left twisting, slowly, slowly in the wind no matter what.  Read more 

(Originally published on February 15, 2006, but since Herr Rove, pursuing his usual tactic of attacking the enemy’s strength, has once more sought to clothe his Emperor in the raiment of “moral clarity” [DCOW], I thought I’d repost it this evening.)  Read more 

“Army Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, the only U.S. military officer to face court-martial over the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, …  Read more 

It so clear to those on the right. Terrorists - bad. Torturing them - good.

Consider the definitions of the two words:

Torture:

1 a: anguish of body or mind; b: something that causes agony or pain.

Terror:

1 a: a state of fear; b: a frightening aspect; c: a cause of anxiety.

Both use fear to obtain a desired result.

The minions of Bush terrorize terrorists with torture tactics to determine terrorists’ intentions. It all makes sense now!  Read more 

On CNN Radio News, I heard a report about the capture of a supposed key Al-Qaeda in Iraq figure.

I haven’t seen this claim online, but the newscaster reported that Khalid al-Mashadani (AKA Abu Shahed) said the surge had had him on the run from Baghdad.

al-Mashadani also said that President Bush is very handsome, “go, Texas Rangers,” and “may I please breathe now?”

From Sideshow commenter thebewilderness:

[The key distinction] “between you and the guy you are torturing is that he might be innocent, but you are not.”

(via)

Picture of JFK Campaigning in a Factory.

Yes, last night’s debate/forum was a huge improvement on previous outings, and Tavis Smiley and the panel of journalists he had gathered put Brian Williams and the rest of the beltway star interlocutors to shame.

And yet, for those of us who, without hesitation, call ourselves liberals, progressives or otherwise acknowledge our left leanings, something has been missing from this too early campaign for who will be the Democratic nominee for President in the 2008 election.

Well, look no further for someone to define what that missing something is. And irony of ironies, you have the Washington Monthly to thank for this, a publication that has sometimes been less than comfortable embracing the liberalism inherited from the 1960s and 70s, not that Charlie Peters, its editor for many years, wasn’t a genuine liberal. But if you were reading the magazine in the 1980s and 1990s, you’ll know what I mean.

Well, someone at the Washington Monthly had the brilliant idea of asking Theodore Sorenson, John Kennedy’s chief speech writer, whom, as the Monthly points out, Kennedy called his “intellectual blood bank,” to write an acceptance speech for whomever addresses the Democratic convention next year as its presidential nominee.

Sorenson is now retired. Over the years, every appearance of his, every published word of his, has reminded me of what it was like living in an America where “liberal” wasn’t a dirty word. Perhaps that’s why Ted Sorenson has been far less visible as a media presence than we had a right to expect, given his historic role with both John and Bobby Kennedy, his intelligence and knowledge of policy, and the power of his writing.

You will see by the speech he has written that Ted Sorenson has been paying attention.

Here’s his opening paragraph, how he would like the Democratic nominee to frame the kind of campaign that is worthy of the demands of the time we’re living in, and worthy of American voters, and which he or she intends to wage with or without the cooperation of the Republican nominee, whomever that may be.  Read more