Washington Flips George The Bird

John Aravosis will swear that this picture of (finally) Ex-POTUS Bush leaving the Capitol via Executive One was purely coincidental.

He Had Me At My Fellow Americans

Did Bush's persistence work, were you finally won over after his national TV address last night?  Was it one of the dozen or so exit interviews he's been giving the last couple of weeks that changed your mind?  Was it his engaging smirk smile, his shifty dancing eyes, the sheer logic of his powerful arguments finally making sence the 30th mind-numbing time you heard them? 

What made you finally decide he was right all along -- or at least better than Nixon?

6 percent of the Rasmussen respondents said Bush was one of the five best presidents ever.

Did his single-minded focus on his legacy show you that he's a reformed man, a man who learned from his utter failure to focus on daily intel briefings warning of terrorist attacks, reports of levee breaking storm surges, legal principles prohibiting torture and warrentless wiretapping, or the lack of any real evidence justifying a war he just had to wage?  Has your sympathy for this pitiful figure softened your lust to see him frog-marched to the Hague?

No?  Still think he's a pathetic cretin who deserves the book thrown at him, that justice ignored is no justice at all, that he needs to pay for his misdeeds lest his antics be repeated by future megalomaniac?

Me too.

We Tortured, Will Bush The Coward Issue Pardons?

There is no longer a debate as documented by Matthew Yglesias » The Legal Cost of Torture

It seems we can’t [prosecute Gitmo inmate Muhammed al-Qahtani for terrorism-related crimes] since he was tortured, ruining the evidence:

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.

***

If Crawford thinks Qahtani can’t be prosecuted because he was tortured, then it stands to reason that there’s someone who can be prosecuted for the torturing.

Next time you hear some bloviating asshat mocking the bleeding hearts on the left who they claim want to invite terrorists over for slumber parties (yes I'm talking about you Joe Scarborough), remind yourself that it was Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Yoo and their fellow cretins who made the conscious decision that the information they thought they would get through torture was worth the risk of eventually tainting any evidence they received to the point where the prisoners might go free and their own freedom would be at risk for authorizing felonies and war crimes.

So be it, decisions like that cannot be without consequences. Let the other shoe drop -- or be thrown, whatever. The jails are filled with people who don't think they did anything wrong, and quite a few who insist that they'd do the same thing that landed them in the slammer again under similar circumstances. No regrets, no contrition, no absolution -- but there is justice.

Bush has got a week to issue the pardons his lieutenants have been counting on for years. As cowardly as it will seem when/if he does issue get-out-of-jail-free cards, far more cowardly would be to walk away from this, shirking responsibility as usual and letting those most loyal to a POTUS who valued loyalty above all else swing for his own crimes.

UPDATE: The Talking Dog noted that Mohammed al-Qahtani was the so-called "20th highjacker." That Crawford, a "Cheney/Addington protege" also said that "the buck stops in the Oval Office." "And Mr. Rumsfeld himself was personally briefed on the ongoing progress of al-Qahtani's tortures."

43 Missions Accomplished

Inspired by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's appearance on the Bill Press Show this morning, where Governor Smart-Ass offered his assessment of the last Bush press conference through the lens the outgoing POTUS would like us to view his tenure -- things he didn't let happen like preventing another terrorist attack, not being invaded by aliens, prevented the Detroit Lions from winning Superbowl, and made sure the Mississippi River still flows downhill -- I'd like to offer (along with my daughter Lizzy who contributed to this fabulous list) the following bar-lowering standards Bush wishes we would judge him by.

So, thanks to Teh Awsum leadership of The Decider Guy, the C+ Augustus wants us to remember:

1. No more American cities have drowned since Katrina.
2. Battlestar Galactica will (finally) return on his watch.
3. Madonna is single again, and available.
4. The Earth is still spinning on its axis and revolving around the sun.
5. No New Texas.
6. "Misunderestimate" is now a real word.
7. Google disarmed the Miserable Failure Google Bomb.
8. Smart is finally cool.
   
9. The Daleks and Cybermen did not exterminate us.
10. February Second will come and go this year without a time/space portal opening up and making us relive the last eight years over and over.
11. Mars Bitches!
12. O.J., finally locked up.
13. New CAFE standards reduced VP Cheney's warm virgin blood requirement to a quart a month.
14. Twitter.com gives Anna Marie Cox something to do between jobs.
15. Paved the way for bloggers to bring the hate to Sarah Palin.
16. The lost city of Atlantis has finally returned to Earth from the Pegasus Galaxy.
17. Full employment for Israeli and Palestinian arms suppliers.
18. Helen Thomas had time to write up a whole lotta questions for the next POTUS, and knit a sweater.
19. Friday Cat Blogging to kill time waiting for Friday Document Dumps.
    
20. TARP!  It's not just for covering furniture anymore.
21. Now any hack can do science.
22. Twilight sequel appears just in time to grab Harry Potter fan base.
    
23. SNL found the funny again.
24. I Can Haz Failblog!
25. We now give a damn when Paul Krugman gets wonkish.
26. Joe Scarborough fully outed as a sociopath.
27. Stepford 1st Lady will be back home in Texas by the time the Final Cylon is revealed, so we got that going for us.
28. Pulitzer Prize worthy scandals to write about.
29. "Truthiness" not just a new word, but a way of life.
30. Paris Hilton's wisdom and maturity finally appreciated.
31. Ozone Layer still intact, mostly.
32. Got one Bush Twin married off ... one to go.
33. Dumbledore Avenged!  Snape lies dead.  (oops, spoiler alert.)
    
34. Avian flu pandemic from China averted, exchanged for tainted toothpaste and dog food.
35. Missile shield going ahead as planned, even though it still doesn't work.
36. Wii: new epicentercenter of domestic violence outbreaks for the holidays.
37. Rachel Maddow now Queen of all Media.
38. Black hole did not eat the entire planet when they turned on the Giant Haydron Collider -- yet.
39. Virtual Bubble Wrap.
40. Budweiser now a fine Belgian lager instead of cheap American swill.
41. Blackberry rip offs of the iPhone interface still not as cool as iPhone.
42. Gas cheap again -- jawboning Saudis musta worked.
43. Money found to be an excellent mattress padding.
    

Bush Coda

So very much has been written, and no doubt will be written about the miserable failure that describes the 21st Century's first United States Presidency.  Today we witnessed the final official public interaction George Bush will have with us through his press corp., live from the Executive Mansion.  From now until Barack Obama takes the oath of office, we can expect nothing more from Still President Bush than pre-scripted theater.

This final press conference was truly remarkable, especially when you think back on his previous performances.  I remember semi-live-blogging one such event which spurred none other than Bill Kristol to remark that Bush lacked leadership.  It was the one where he ducked every other question and refused to admit any mistakes cuz it wasn't a written question given to him in advance, linked 9/11 to Iraq, commanders on the ground ... 9/11 ... terrorism ... war footing ... 9/11 ... WMDs ... 9/11 -- you know the drill.

What?  It doesn't ring any bells and sounds like all his other press conferences?  Yeah, me too.  That's why I gave up live-blogging Bush's press conferences.  That's not to say there weren't interesting snippets here and there when an unscripted POTUS was in front of old "Stretch" and the gang -- like the time he admitted he could "speak more truthfully" right after the '06 election and canning Rummy -- not that he ever did.  He'd first have to be truthful with himself, and that'll never happen.

But today was different, not just for the historical significance.  Bush was resigned to his fate, his guard down, no agenda to push, no lies to sell.  Nevertheless, lies he did tell as Rachel Maddow documents so very well in these two segments (just click the links, I hate the way MSNBC does their embeds):

Video: Special Report: Gitmo

Jan. 12: Lame Duck Special Report: During his last press conference as president, Bush blamed other countries for problems related to Guantanamo Bay and disagreed that abuses at the prison have damaged America’s moral standing in the world. Rachel Maddow is joined by lead defense counsel Major David J.R. Frakt, who represents some prisoners. (MSNBC)

Video: Special Report: Katrina

Jan. 12: Lame Duck Special Report: At President Bush’s last press conference as president, he defended the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Not only that, President Bush left out the National Guard and FEMA when talking about the federal response. Rachel Maddow is joined by former Times-Picayune city editor Jed Horne (MSNBC)

The Katrina piece is especially poignant yet compelling, a point-by-point time-line of debunkature.  Keith Olbermann does his normally excellent job and sets the record straight despite Shrub's best attempts to rewrite history -- predictably failing as usual.

Watching the presser live, it will come to no surprise to friends, family and anyone who reads my blog on a semi-regular basis that I found myself, again, yelling at my TV.  I was pretty incensed at Bush's take on the Katrina debacle which Olbermann aptly described as deflecting criticism to his decision on where to hold the photo-op being his most important contribution. 

Classic Bush, knocking down strawmen.  It was reminiscent of deflecting a question years ago about being greeted as liberators, oil revenue paying for the war and not finding WMDs with the non-sequitur: "First, the lesson of September the 11th is that when this nation sees a threat, a gathering threat, we got to deal with it."  No acknowlegement to this day that people were stranded at the Superdome with no food or water for days -- and no way out.  No talk of "lessons learned" about levies and infrastructure, coordination of emergency response or rebuilding efforts.

No one has ever sugested that the Coast Guard and Navy were anything short of remarkable in their heroic efforts to airlift rooftop refugees.  When you concentrate the lion's share of a society's resources to the military, you should expect no less.  The lack of civilian agency competence with comparable merit is equally predictable.

My final memory of this final press appearance was Bush's rebuke of the idea that the Presidency is a burden, the loneliest job on the planet.  Not the way Bush handled it.  Arrogant, uncaring of consequences or criticism, belligerent and ignorant -- all the while logging over a year's worth of "vacation" time (more than any previous White House occupant) and never receiving an intelligence briefing on Sunday.  I'd think the job was a piece of cake too if I kept those hours, and didn't give a damn whether anything I did mattered.

Good riddance you piece of shit.

I Hope They Can Clean This Up In Translation

Holden's obsessive tracking of the witlessness of our illustrious C-Plus Augustus is legendary. But today's episode of an interview conducted for Voice of America's Persian News Network was absolutely incomprehensible.

But there is a better way forward. And I thought, for example, the Russians proposed an interesting way, that says -- and I have said publicly, and the Iranian people need to know that I believe Iran has the right to have civilian nuclear power.

I mean, really ...huh?

I can't imagine how that goes over in Farsi. The real fun though is trying to figure out what country he's talking about.

Well, part of the problem is that it's very hard for people to trust the Iranian government because they haven't told the full truth, and that's why the people of Iran have got to understand there are great suspicions right now, not only in the United States, but around the world.

It that a universal thing, or just a problem in Iran? Could you elaborate Mr. President?

In other words, I -- once a nation hasn't told the truth, it requires a lot of work to convince people that they'll be telling the truth in the future.

Ah. I get it now. That's why Preznitin' is such hard work.

Oh, you mean there's more?

And any time a government is failing to meet the needs of people -- or a lot of times, not "any time," but a lot of times governments have failed to meet the needs of their people, particularly in relatively non-transparent, non-free societies they always look for somebody to blame.

Okay, I'm losing this in translation again.

Does this mean that only countries that aren't the U.S. of By God "A" look for someone to blame when the Guv'mnt fuck's over the people. In the words of our Vice President, "So."

Bush Just Gave Me A Concussion

So fast was my head spinning when The Resident said he remembered when there were Savings & Loans in his speech today before the New York Economic Club -- that he remembered his loan officer.

I find it hard to believe this guy ever had to go to a creditor, hat in hand to ask if he could renegotiate a loan to keep his house. (Keep a busted oil drilling platform operating, or to keep his stinking job, sure.) There'll be an enormous amount of deconstruction of his mendacity, but I just had to blurb this out there.

"W's" brother's savings & loan was a huge beneficiary of the S&L bailout due to Neil Bush's self-serving double-dealing; and Bush's new BFF, John McCain was up to his eyeballs in the Lincoln S&L scandal that led "Ace" to being rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for his part in the Keating Five mess.

I just can't believe with this awful and expensive history, the President even mentioned Savings and Loans ever existed.

UPDATE: Yes, he really did say this:

You know the issue like I do, though. I'm old enough to remember savings and loans, and remember who my savings and loan officer was, who loaned me my first money to buy a house.

I remember his banker for Arbusto (Shrub) Energy was the half-brother/cousin of Osama bin Laden...

And had I got in a bind, I could have walked across the street in Midland, Texas, and say, I need a little help; can you help me readjust my note so I can stay in my house? There are no such things as that type of deal anymore. As a matter of fact, the paper -- you know, had this been a modern era, the paper that had -- you know, my paper, my mortgage, could be owned by somebody in a foreign country, which makes it hard to renegotiate the note.

The mind boggles.

Eve Of Destruction

While a certain nameless blogger believes "Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic Party," and is not alone in his thinking, the difference in the way the old party mechanism structure was transformed is a far cry from the manner in which ...

George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues. ~Peggy Noonan, WSJ (H.T. FDL)

Nooner gets the breath of Bush devastation right, the fact that Brand GOP is no longer a viable commodity. The rats leaving the sinking ship is further testament to Bush's scorched earth policy.

Moreover, Bush is leaving the country, and not just his party a smoking ruin. Clinton did no such thing.

Interestingly enough however, is the style differences. Clinton's "sin" was the triangulation, a willingness to adopt GOP framing and even co-opt their policy positions in order to conduct the people's business when dealing with a Congress controlled by the other side. George W. Bush has grown even more petulant and stubborn when faced with even the tepid resistance offered by Pelosi/Reid -- never considering any form of compromise.

Come on, the guy even vetoed health care for kids -- one of those bipartisan thingies Broder and the rest of the Village Idiots so admire..

You don't have to like Bill Clinton or his wife. But don't sit there and tell me he "destroyed" the Democratic Party when you see the decimation Bush Rule has wrought on the GOP.

But think of all the hate
There is in red China.
Then take a look around
To Selma, Alabama.
You may leave here
For four days in space,
But when you return
It's the same old place.
The poundin' of the drums,
The pride and disgrace.
You can bury your dead,
But don't leave a trace.
Hate your next door neighbor,
But don't forget to say grace

And tell me
Over and over and over and over again, my friend,
You don't believe
We're on the eve of destruction.
Ah, no, no, you don't believe
We're on the eve of destruction. ~The Byrds

Shorter Rudy 9iu11ni

9/11 was on a Tuesday. Election day is on a Tuesday. 9/11 was an election day. Vote for me, 9/11. (H.T. Jeff)

And could someone please make this stuff stop. It went from silly to weird to embarrassing all too long ago.

"I can press when there needs to be pressed; I can hold hands when there needs to be—hold hands."—on how he can contribute to the Middle East peace process," Washington, D.C., Jan. 4, 2008

While I'm at it, can someone tell me just what Dana Peroxide IS good for?

Q Can we finish with the budget deficits --

MS. PERINO: The economy? Okay.

Q -- since we're on that? What do you think of this new CBO estimate that shows the slowing economy having a pretty dramatic effect on increasing the debt?

MS. PERINO: Well, I don't know how they come to their -- all of the numbers at CBO. It's a little bit -- math is not my strong suit.

Teh Decideror Negotieratin Midder East Peeces

You're fucking kidding me, right?

"I'm under no illusions," Bush said Wednesday at a trip-opening news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. "It's going to be hard work."

I don't know whether to laugh, cry ... or laugh really, really hard.

Naturally, the "hard work" includes visitin' the neighbors, checkin' on weapons customers and schmoozin' with his favorite bankers.

---

Ooh! Ooh! UPDATED with the funniest headline yet:

Bush predicts Mideast peace within a year

It looks like the PrezNitWit is back to snortin' coke, what a shame.

The Best Daily Kos Thread -- Ever

Logging all of the nicknames for the Resident and Thief in one place.

Here's a sample of just one comment out of 972 from rightiswrong:

Oh yeah... A shrub burn-in' (51+ / 0-)

My favorite pastime!
Throw another log on the fire, cook me up some bacon and some beans!

Chuckles McDrinky
Chokey McPretzel
Bumblefuck Brainboy
King Midas of the Kingdom of Shit
Smirky Bushmonkey
Simian in Chief
Dr. Zeaus
Bonzo Junior
AWOL Ape
George the Aggression Monkey
Fart in a Flightsuit
President Primate
The Idiot Iraqerator
Bubble Boy
Cheney's Hand Held Presidential Puppet

Laura's Lawn Ornament (let's not discuss her hood ornament)
The Deciderator
The Chimperor
The Chimperererator
The Missing Link
The Connecticut Cocaine Cowboy

Huckabee's Brain
The Downing Street Dope
Sixteen words, Sixteen IQ
Rove's Appendix

The Satan of Stupid
The Butcher of Baghdad
The Compassionate Cretin
Adolph Asshole

And my very favorite:
Former President George W. Bush

Mark's Theory Of Why Change Matters

Because this kind of crap has to stop.

"If you've got somebody in harm's way,
you want the president being—
making advice, not—
be given advice by the military,
and not making decisions based upon the latest Gallup poll or focus group."
—George W. Bush, New Albany, Ind., Nov. 13, 2007

And this is even worse.

"In other words, he was given an option:
Are you with us or are you not with us?
And he made a clear decision to be with us,
and he's acted on that advice."
—on President Pervez Musharraf, Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007

Why do we have to put up with another year of this idiot? Oh yeah, I remember. Because his State of the Union Addresses are Teh Awesome, and we need one more to complete the set.

Aahhrrgggghhhh!!!

Tuesday: 11 36 Iraqis Killed, 35 51 Wounded

Indeed, my "scream an obscenity and throw something at the TeeVee moment" was when Bush said said today, "I’ve tried to be respectful to all parties." Thankfully, Carpetbagger saved me the effort of searching the record.

To be fair, Bush never called his political opponents "opportunists" who peddle "dishonest and reprehensible charges." That was his vice president.

― Tim Grieve

But we do have this miscreant on record saying Democrats were:

• ... willing to wave the white flag of surrender.
• ... the party of cut and run ... when the votes are counted, their softer side comes out.
• ... knee-jerk opposition
• ... more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight

Yeah, real respectful. But of course, this little throw-away line was lost in the massive, jaw-dropping, collective, "Whaaaa?" that the news of Iran having abandoned it's nuclear weapons program back when we invaded Iraq -- a way of making overtures to Washington to collectively police Iran's out-of-control neighbors like Saddam and the Taliban in a cooperative fashion. Overtures that were predictably rejected by Cheney, the warmonger-in-chief.

I don't think the Village is buying Bush's laughing-boy routine. Nobody, not even Hillary is getting a pass on their anti-Iran rhetoric. They know they were played for chumps, and are going to be counting scalps for what Dan Froomkin calls Bush's "Neck-Snapping Spin."

Froomkin outright calls Bush a liar (in Broderesque approved terms of course), when he says the President has "profound credibility problems."

It was neck-snapping spin even by Bush standards. He intentionally misread the report's central point, failed to acknowledge a huge change in his argument for why Iran is dangerous and exhibited pure bullheaded stubbornness.

Nobody really should have been surprised about Bush's consistent delusion that he's never wrong. Rehiring Wolfowitz as some kind of WMD expert is clearly a move to keep the neocons in the game, even though "Team-B" has been wrong about absolutely everything since 1976.

But that consistent wrongness hasn't dissuaded the jingoistic meathead with delusions of intellectualism (™++UG) from insisting the only good Iranian is a blown-up Iranian.

I can't stop myself from pointing out: apparently, if this report is to be believed, they stopped their nuclear weapons development immediately after being branded a member of the "axis of evil."

Yeah. Okay, that was it. [snort] Georgie Bushy's name calling scared the Nooks right outta Teheran. You know, if some of these dead-end bloggers from Wingnuttystan weren't such heavy drinkers, the Intertoobz would be far less entertaining.

But none of that stuff made me put down the remote (which could do damage) and pick up a strategically misplaced plushy puppy toy and heave it at the television while Bush catapulted the talking points to his legions, the 25%ers who can't flush properly without written instructions from their authoritarian figureheads. No.

It was the utter stupidity of the man on display. Bush was in classic smirking chimp mode. The self-conscious denigration of "psychology 101," the shiftlessness, stammering, eye-rolling lack of basic language skills all added to my usual contempt for the Piece of Bush. The whole enchilada, epitomized by his complete lack of self-awareness and the sneering, snide, transparently superior way he treats everyone on earth who doesn't kiss his ass -- that got an audible "F-You, asshole" from this little corner of Toledo.

PrezNitWit Readjusts The Iranian Bellicosity Bar

Shorter Shrub on the NIE at today's Presser:

So? I still don't like scary Ir-Rayn-Yuns -- cuz maybe they still know stuff 'bout NuKuLers.

If I got it straight, this stubborn little, little man insists that facts and the informed opinion of 16 intelligence agencies combined wisdom on their area of expertise get in the way of his fear of scary, scary Iranian Muhallas because they once tried to get Nooks. So they once knew how to make them, still do, might keep on knowing how in the future -- and could tell even badder people.

My (rough) Bushism of the day:

"Iran, was dangerous. Is dangerous. And will continue to be dangerous if they have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon."

Yeah, I know, the intel agencies have dropped the ball before, at least those who purposely ignored the caveats and warnings in previous NIE's would have us believe so. But consider the logic of Bush's "firm belief."

The same could be said of newly embraced Libya, not to mention South Africa or (dare we mention) Israel, as nations who could turn on a dime and use their surreptitiously obtained knowledge of nuclear engineering and make a bomb -- in five to ten years or so. Okay, the Israel example is a stretch. They would probably need about five to ten weeks to make a nuke from scratch.

New Iranian response claiming (ala LoLCats channeling Steve Martin):

"We FoRrrgot" how to make teh nukez, so I Can Haz Cheezburger Now?
KTHXBIA."

Meanwhile, for a quick laugh while we wait for the translation, do look at Crazy Pammy rant about how moist the State Department gets her.

Bush Tells Senate GOP To Stop Obstructionism

Monday: 46 Iraqis Killed, 11 Wounded
Sunday: 53 Iraqis Killed, 33 Wounded
Saturday: 1 US Soldier, 40 Iraqis Killed; 46 Iraqis Wounded; 41 Iraqis Kidnapped

Okay, no he didn't, even though when he told Congress to Get To Work, implying of course that the Democratic led Congress is to blame for the backlog of pending legislation, he seemed sincere.

But in light of the fact that the Senate Republicans have set a new record for filibusters, stonewalling almost everything coming down the pike, you'd think a simple phone call to Mitch McConnell would stop the nonsense.

So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed.

For policy making, this is the legislative equivalent of gum on a shoe.

This makes everyone look bad, but in BushWorld, they love to confuse the public -- even after they're out of office and rewriting history. Just make no mistake about it. The GOP has not only filibustered more in this first year of this term than any full two-year term in the history of the body, but they're going to keep on doing it. At this rate it will surpass the number of all the filibusters from all the Congressional terms combined.

Since they hate government anyway, they're willing to take this shot in the gut as long as the Democrats can get smeared in the process of making the whole system look bad. They'll just lie about it later anyway, to us as well as themselves.

Remember, with Right Wing Authoritarians, it's not about policy, just power.

Keith Olbermann, Daniel Levin and Waterboarding

Wednesday: 52 Iraqis Killed, 38 Wounded

Cross Posted at E. Pluribus Unum and KOS-posted too.

It would seem that Radar online is less than impressed with Keith Olbermann's Special Comment Tuesday where he minced no words in accusing President Bush of being a criminal who condoned torture due to the story of former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dan Levin, who was fired after he subjected himself to waterboarding and declared it to be "torture."

The memo Levin wrote is here.

This thing was in response to a directive from POTUS that superseded Gonzo's ridiculous edict that asserted torture was only something that caused "severe" pain which was limited to "excruciating and agonizing" or equivalent to the same pain felt "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Bush threw out the 2002 definition Gonzo gave us that pretty much allowed anything short of 40 lashes and asked for a new definition, which starts with the International Convention Against Torture (CAT) . . .

"The fact remains, however, that the only relevant definition of 'torture' is the definition contained in [the] CAT. . . .")"
***
The CAT defines "torture" so as to require the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental."


If it's torture, it's illegal under Federal Criminal Statutes, and specifically the statute in question incorporated the CAT to fulfill our obligations under that treaty. Bush said unambiguously "We do not torture." This memo takes Bush at his word and ignores all that mumbo jumbo about "inherent war powers" as unnecessary in light of his statement.

The statutes in question start here.

That's the "definition" section . . . ["torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering ] --my emphasis. Threats are sufficient, including threats to others, like family members ala Higazy which I wrote about here...

Penalties are in the next section, part 2340(a).

Even attempting Torture is a crime punishable for up to 20 years, and can result in the death penalty if the victim dies. This applies to all offenders who are US nationals or anyone if it takes place within the US. Conspiracy to commit torture does not carry the death penalty, but can result in 20yrs, or life imprisonment if the victim dies.

Okay, that's the preliminaries. The statute, the CAT and Part I of the memo. Part II is looking at parsing this sentence into 4 separate ideas...
"specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering".
1. "severe"
2. "severe physical pain OR suffering"
3. "severe mental pain or suffering"
4. "specifically intended."

I have a feeling the rub will be the last part, so I'm skipping to #4.
The parsing here is whether you intend to commit the act itself that results in the severe pain and suffering, or that you specifically intended the results -- the severe pain and suffering itself.

The courts are inconsistent and ambiguous in the difference, if any, between general intent and specific intent. The idea is whether you intended merely to shoot someone (which may or may not have killed the victim) or did you intend that the victim actually die. Did you intend the act, or the result of the act as well?

Usually this is a distinction without a difference. As a practical matter, when a result is almost certain to occur from an intentional act, the courts allow the inference that the result was intended regardless of the actual desire of the accused -- but this inference can be a question of fact for a jury. Some cases say you need a conscious desire, others only require that the result is reasonably foreseeable.

Interestingly enough, Levin elects not to parse this, holding Bush to his word. (silly boy)

"We do not believe it is useful to try to define the precise meaning of "specific intent" in section 2340. (27) In light of the President's directive that the United States not engage in torture, it would not be appropriate to rely on parsing the specific intent element of the statute to approve as lawful conduct that might otherwise amount to torture."

He notes that if someone had a conscious desire to inflict "severe physical or mental pain and suffering," that would mean they specifically intended to commit torture. BUT, if he acted in good faith, and conducted a reasonable investigation to find out if his actions would result in "severe physical or mental pain and suffering," then he does not meet the specific intent requirement of the statute and any resulting pain and suffering would be unintentional.

There's a lot of gray area between those two scenarios. But that's what juries are for. Also he looks at motive. Torture for a "good reason" still is torture, even for threats to National Security. The last paragraph is looking at a kind of "attempted" torture. The threat is made (even though the perpetrator "really didn't mean it"), and to avoid torture the victim does what the perpetrator demands and isn't touched. That's still criminal under the statute.

I'm reading this and thinking that Higazy should be given his own key to Fort Knox.

Back to the phrase, "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" he takes apart the word "severe" and decides is just an ordinary english word -- goes to the dictionary: extreme, violent or intense, hard to sustain or endure . . . then the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1984) -- the CAT limits torture as an extreme practice, unusually cruel.

It's a tautology, using comments on "torture" to define "severe" in the definition of torture. But such is legal reasoning,

Torture, being "severe" is more that (get this) ordinary "acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

But this is something carrying the death penalty, not your run of the mill assault. "[T]orture is the gravest form of [cruel, inhuman, or degrading] treatment [or] punishment."

The guy Levin is good, a real lawyer who actually did his homework -- unlike Gonzales who tried to make this distinction by pulling crap out of his ass. The DOJ told the Senate, torture was "barbaric cruelty which lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct." This of course was when the Reagan administration wanted this to be passed and accepted by as many countries, even the thuggish ones, as possible. Back in the day . . . when the POTUS has a minimal respect for international law.

BECAUSE, while the CAT says one thing, Levin doesn't think that the US statutes "intended to reach only conduct involving 'excruciating and agonizing' pain or suffering."

"Although there is some support for this formulation in the ratification history of the CAT, a proposed express understanding to that effect was "criticized for setting too high a threshold of pain," and was not adopted."

So . . . where's the line? Where is "severe" among . . . "substantial, extreme, intense, excruciating, or agonizing." Here Levin looks at the civil statute (Higazy's friend), the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). It doesn't so much judge degrees of pain and suffering, but looks to WHY the victim was subject to the conduct.

*** for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a confession *** intimidating or coercing***

Again the word "severe" is used and the Courts have decided that term is "crucial." The conduct proscribed by the [CAT] and the TVPA is sufficiently extreme and outrageous to warrant the universal condemnation.

"The more intense, lasting, or heinous the agony, the more likely it is to be torture."

The case law is summarized on the TVPA in cases where torture was NOT found:
1) where the details of a beating weren't sufficiently provided to give the court enough of an idea of their "severity" including their frequency, duration, the parts of the body at which they were aimed, and the weapons used,
2) Death threats alone did NOT constitute torture.

Torture was found to have occurred in a case where the behavior was more unusual and detailed evidence provided that a course of conduct was torture that included:
1) "severe" beatings of plaintiff,
2) repeated threats of death and electric shock,
3) sleep deprivation,
4) extended shackling to a cot (at times with a towel over his nose and mouth and water poured down his nostrils),
5) seven months of confinement in a "suffocatingly hot" and cramped cell,
6) eight years of solitary or near-solitary confinement.

I get the feeling that any single one of these acts might not be considered torture, but together it's a pattern of behavior that is undoubtedly torture and other examples where not a single act, but a course of extreme conduct was found to be torture.

Under this definition, which seems perfectly sound on it's face without more research, one act of waterboarding won't get you life in prison.

(2) The meaning of "severe physical pain or suffering."

Here Levin distinguishes between pain versus suffering, determining that severe suffering CAN OCCUR WITHOUT PAIN. This is a big difference between Gonzo's definition and Levin. Words mean things: "or suffering" is not supposed to be ignored.

Likewise, physical suffering, even if not painful, is different from mental suffering. BUT, Congress, in ratifying the statute and the diplomats writing the CAT talked about pain AND suffering, even though the statute they passed says pain OR suffering. The debate record shows the Senators used the phrases interchangeably without any apparent difference in meaning.

Levin decides that despite this, words still mean things, and the OR is there for a reason . . . BUT . . . "To constitute such torture, "severe physical suffering" would have to be a condition of some extended duration or persistence as well as intensity."

I think this might be where he can say waterboarding, while not painful, if done persistently, for a long time, again and again possibly, can be "severe physical suffering."

(3) The meaning of "severe mental pain or suffering."

Read "severe" here to mean, "prolonged."

"Mental harm" must be caused by acts falling within one of the four listed acts:
1) threatened or actual infliction of severe physical pain or suffering
2) giving the victim drugs
3) death threat
4) the threat to a 3rd person of one of the above.

This is an "exclusive" list. Meaning there are no other acts that can cause mental harm and still be considered the result of torture but the ones listed. Also, actual mental harm must result, and is not merely presumed every time these acts are committed. Literally, no harm, no foul.

And the severe/prolonged "harm" means there is actual damage, an injury to one's mental state that must last for a reasonable period of time. It can't be instantly gotten over, nor must it be permanent damage.

Here's where I digress again. The purpose of putting someone on the waterboard is to induce panic. There are physical manifestations (suffering) of panic as well as the obvious harm to the psyche. That's it's purpose, that's why you do it -- to alter the victim's mental state so they are more compliant.

I don't know, however, if just doing it to someone whose mental state is altered enough to spill the beans, and when it's over and they calm down they're okay after an hour or two would fit the definition of torture. On the other hand, if they'd been kept in solitary, roughed up a few times, subject to extremes of heat and/or cold, kept in "stress positions" and deprived of sleep or food -- and then were put on the waterboard; there's no doubt they are a torture victim and like Padilla, were probably really messed up in the head by the time they saw the light of day.

Now, remember, simple assault of a prisoner is a war crime. Torture is a war crime that can get you the chair.

OKAY. . . that's the English translation of the Justice Department's interpretation of the torture statute. Waterboarding is mentioned as one part of a continuing pattern of abuse that taken together constituted torture. This doesn't mention anything like the story Keith told of Levin being waterboarded himself, or that he says anywhere in the memo that this act -- ALL BY ITSELF is torture. Do it a lot, however, or as part of a scheme to break someone down systematically over time, it's torture.

Does that help?

These guys misstate the memo, and claim that Levin won't discuss the situation further beyond the memo. (So how did ABC get the story about him subjecting himself to waterboarding?)

It's also assault, a felony, last time I looked, and a war crime. It's a war crime merely to humiliate prisoners.



Although there is wiggle room, for Radar online to suggest that waterboarding is "perfectly legal" is as stupid as saying Levin was actually tortured when he voluntarily had himself waterboarded. Even if it's not torture (done once for 10 seconds, with no threats, no other bad treatment -- yeah right) it is always illegal if it's involuntary, it's assault and battery, and if done to an enemy combatant or others protected under Geneva, it's a war crime notwithstanding it not being worthy of the death penalty.

But note, if someone dies, accidentally, while being waterboarded -- Olbermann is absolutely right and that perpetrator will face the death penalty. UNLESS he acted in good faith, and conducted a reasonable investigation to find out if his actions would result in "severe physical or mental pain and suffering,"

Condi Sowed The Wind, Reaps Whirlwind

Thursday: 3 GIs, 58 Iraqis Killed; 45 Iraqis Wounded
Wednesday Update: 40 94 Iraqis Killed, 19 20 Wounded

So, which is better: sending a crop of incompetent cronies and even more incompetent kids of cronies to staff America's most ambitious foreign policy project since the Marshall Plan, the rebuilding of a hostile nation from scratch? Or, Staffing America's largest embassy with professionals who don't want to be there and don't believe in the mission in the first place?

Reaping what she sowed as National Security Adviser, now as Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is facing a mutiny of foreign service officers refusing to be drafted for Station Baghdad.

I was fairly shocked to hear Henry K. Thomas Jr, the Director General of the Foreign Service, defending this new policy -- drafting career diplomats for hazardous duty in the Green Zone. I shouldn't have been, but I didn't expect him to take this tack.

A poll conducted this month by the American Foreign Service Association found that only 12 percent of officers "believe that . . . Rice is fighting for them," union president John K. Naland said at yesterday's meeting, which was first reported by the Associated Press.

"That's their right. But they're wrong," said Thomas, who appeared to grow increasingly agitated as the questioning became more pointed.

"Sometimes, if it's 88 to 12, maybe the 88 percent are correct," Naland said.

"Eighty-eight percent of the country believed in slavery at one time. Was that correct?" Thomas responded, saying he was "insulted." Rice is fighting hard for them, he said.

Whaaaaaa?

Okay, first of all, the poll was not of the whole country Mr. Thomas. It was of the people likely to be put in harm's way. In any other country, an embassy in the middle of a war zone would be shut down, and these people know that. I assure you that if you polled people who were slaves in the 1800's, you'd have near 100% agreement that the government wasn't "fighting for them."

This truly blew my mind, and I didn't fully appreciate it until I saw the clip. Director Thomas I'm sure is a very professional and accomplished man. But to see an African-American standing defiant, defending his African-American Boss's edict that a form of involuntary servitude was proper policy by raising the specter of public opinion towards another form of involuntary service -- slavery -- was simply stunning.

I hate to put it this way, but after that kind of crack I'm pretty sure that Mr. Thomas' nieces and nephews aren't the only one's who call him "Uncle." I morn for your soul Mr. Thomas, because today is the day you lost it.

It's yet another, "with us or against us" moment, pure demagoguery. But Director Thomas wasn't the only one playing this game today. The PrezNitWit himself was at it again, if you can glean anything comprehensible from the gibberish his supporters laughingly call "speech."

Holden documents the atrocities, but the Gateway Pundit zeros in on the target de jure, MoveOn.org, Bloggers, and Code Pink protesters. If he was going in any kind of order, that means I'm number two on the hit list. They'll be rounding me up sometime after they arrest the MoveOn folks and before they arrest the Code Pink ladies. Good company, I'll bring the beer. But the whole thrust of the speech was summed up in this segment:

"Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naïve. Either way, it is dangerous for our country. We are at war—and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist."

HT: Shakes

It really boils down the same old thing. The petulant piss-ant Resident of the West Wing says unless Congress does as he demands, we're all going to die. JeeZuz George, get a new act. And take that pet bull-dog, Cheney, out for a walk in traffic with you.

So, we can add the Department of State to the list of agencies the Bush administration has destroyed as an institution, one once filled with dedicated public servants that now is just a hollow shell of itself, useful only as a mere appendage of the President's whims instead of it's forgotten primary mission -- pubic service. The Army is broken, the Justice Department is just a mess and needs to be completely purged, the Department of Labor might as well be called the department of union busting, the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't want the tools to do it's job. Small wonder that over a score of high ranking appointees left under a cloud of controversy. These people are pirates in blue suits.

Is THIS an Acceptable Level of Shrill?

"It'’s amazing to me that the President expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science, which will make this country stronger over the long term, but he doesn’'t blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where we were six months ago."

-- Dem Rep. David Obey
(Hat Tip TPM Election Central)

It kinda has a lousy beat, Dick. And I don't think you can dance to it. I'll give it a 24.

It just doesn't have the same flair as,

"Where are you going to get that money? You’re going to tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war? You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

A Distinction Without a Difference

by shep

Reading Daily Kos this morning, a came across this peculiar claim by DHinMI in a long essay about Blackwater and the GOP:

“But the main reason why it’s wrong to refer to Bush authoritarianism as fascist is, simply, that it’s not fascist. Fascism exalted the state as the most powerful force, more powerful than any other institutions, including business.”

My reply is: you’re making a distinction where there is no difference, in both fascism and the Republican model of government.

The most perfect illustration of that is the current purchase of immunity for cooperating in illegal domestic spying for telecom companies by former political officials (in both parties) now employed by the telecoms and lobbying by current government officials, such as intelligence director Mike McConnell, who were formerly (directly) employed by the telecoms.



I’ll let Glenn Greenwald describe another dimension to the lack of distinction between “the state” and business:

”The top telecom officials are devoting substantial amounts of their energy to working on highly classified telecom projects with the Bush administration, including projects to develop whole new joint networks and ensure unfettered governmental access to those networks. Before joining the administration as its Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell spearheaded the efforts on behalf of telecoms to massively increase the cooperation between the Federal Government and the telecom industry.

The private/public distinction here has eroded almost completely. There is no governmental oversight or regulation of these companies. Quite the contrary, they work in secret and in tandem -- as one consortium -- with no oversight at all.”

Strangely, DHinMI’s thesis is based in large measure on Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine which contains no such denial of Republican fascism:

“A more accurate term for a system that erases the boundaries between Big Government and Big Business is not liberal, conservative or capitalist but corporatist. Its main characteristics are huge transfers of public wealth to private hands, often accompanied by exploding debt, an ever-widening chasm between the dazzling rich and the disposable poor and an aggressive nationalism that justifies bottomless spending on security. For those inside the bubble of extreme wealth created by such an arrangement, there can be no more profitable way to organize a society. But because of the obvious drawbacks for the vast majority of the population left outside the bubble, other features of the corporatist state tend to include aggressive surveillance (once again, with government and large corporations trading favors and contracts), mass incarceration, shrinking civil liberties and often, though not always, torture.”

From Wikipedia on “corporatism”:

“Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill corporations.”

From Wikipedia on fascism:

”Fascism also operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote "superior" individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

And from the self-proclaimed “founder” of fascism himself:

”The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.” (p. 41).
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

Any way you slice it, fascism is about the alignment of all institutions of state power, especially corporate power, against the interests of democratic representation, populist policy and individual liberty, i.e., liberalism. It seeks not to enhance the state relative to business but to remove the barrier between corporate interests and the interests of state entirely. Meanwhile, fascism seeks to suppress or coerce any remaining conflicts with those interests as determined by its elites in both business and government, because they are the same people and the same interests.

From the corruption of the democratic process in the Supreme Court sanctioned Republican coup of 2000 and political prosecutions and voter suppression by Republican government officials, to restructuring the tax system to favor wealth rather than work, to outsourcing the writing of US law to corporations, to privatizing entire government functions like protecting US government officials overseas, to the militarization of society through fear mongering, to colluding between government and corporations to violate the law to spy on the lawful activities American citizens, this Republican government cannot be distinguished from US corporate interests and their combined interest in monopolizing the country’s wealth and power and undermining the liberty and self rule of average citizens. That is fascism by every meaning of the word.


[Cross-posted at E Pluribus Unum]

The Emporer's Empty Invisible Suit

Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Fred Thompson (R-Hollywood) has emerged from his Fortress of Ineptitude to salvage the image of Republicans everywhere.

Certainly no one else could match the miscalculations and boorish savior faire of the decider as efficiently as the man whose raison d'entre is to prove that the Presidency is not a job, but merely a part to be played.

Both George W. Bush and Fred D. Thompson took their comedy routines on the road this week, and neither disappointed:

George: APEC/OPEC, Whatever ...

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit. I appreciate -- APEC summit. (Laughter.) He invited me to the OPEC summit next year."

Fred: They Hate For Our Smoking Sections

Fred Thompson puzzled Iowans yesterday by insisting an Al Qaeda smoking ban was one reason freedom-loving Iraqis bolted to the U.S. side.

“They said, ‘You gotta quit smoking,’” Thompson explained to a questioner asking about progress in Iraq during a town hall-style meeting. […]

George: AARRRRRastRRrrrEEEaaahhhh/AARrraustRrrRAILLLLLEEEaahhh Whatever ...

The president's next goof went uncorrected — by him anyway. Talking about Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops."

That one was fixed for him. Though tapes of the speech clearly show Bush saying "Austrian," the official text released by the White House switched it to "Australian."

Fred: Dissent Causes Terrorism ...

"If you're politically committed against this war and to do something to further harm the president, the way the Democrats seem to be in Congress, then anything [in the Petraeus Report] that's a mixed message is going to be seized upon in a negative way," Thompson told Fox News on Thursday.

"If we look weak and divided in this country, we're going to pay a heavy price for it in the future," he went on. "We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb. And they're not going to go away. They're here now, they're armed and dangerous, and they're trying to get weapons of mass destruction

George: Almost falls of the cliff ...

"Then, speech done, Bush confidently headed out — the wrong way. He strode away from the lectern on a path that would have sent him over a steep drop. Howard and others redirected the president to center stage, where there were steps leading down to the floor of the theater."
Also, he was late and people only applauded when he left.

... but steps into the brink ...

"We were all so focused on trying to get Bush out of Iraq that no one noticed he's still fighting the Korean War. Who knew?!

In a related matter, Bush announced that he's unwilling to declare an end to the War of 1812 until the British agree to take back David and Victoria Beckham."

Of course, Our SuperHero Fred, will rise to the occasion, smiting Redcoats and Terrorists, or any Traitor parroting the OBL/KOS talking points.

Fred forgets what he thinks of Social Security, thinks bin Laden is just another empty suit, and thinks someone, somewhere ought to come up with a plan to take these terrorists out. (HT: TPM)

Maha has the PrezNitWit Tape.

The Corner has the goods on Steady Freddy, a place where I seldom look for reasonable discourse. But then again, even a blind squirrel ...

Fred Thompson came to the offices of National Review some years when he was still in the Senate. I liked him fine. He has done nothing, anywhere, ever. The Hubble Telescope could not find what he has done, because he has not done it.

It would be unwise to put such a man in the White House at this moment in history.

That damn Digby stole my idea, and did it better (of course), excerpting the other Reagan Wannabees trying to be more conservative than thou as well.