Use of National Security Letters Greatly Expanded under the Obama Administration –
Ross Douthat writes, “For those with eyes to see, the daylight between the foreign policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been shrinking ever since the current president took the oath of office. But last week made it official: When the story of America’s post-9/11 wars is written, historians will be obliged to assess the two administrations together, and pass judgment on the Bush-Obama era.”
According to a report from the Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, “During calendar year 2010, the Government made 1,579 applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (hereinafter ‘FISC’) for authority to conduct electronic surveillance and/or physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.”
The number of people that the FBI has targeted with national security letters (NSLs) has more than doubled in the last year.
According to an article in the Washington Post on Monday, “The letters enable the bureau to collect a large amount of sensitive information like financial and phone records in terrorism and espionage investigations.”
“In 2007, the Justice Department’s inspector general found widespread violations in FBI use of the letters, including demands without proper authorization and information obtained in non-emergency circumstances,” the Post article continues
The Post writes, “The FBI has tightened oversight of the system. The letters are controversial because there is no court scrutiny of the process.”
According to a release from the American Civil Liberties Union, this marks a “dramatic increase in surveillance of Americans between 2009 and 2010, and these statistics don’t even include surveillance conducted under the new FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 1978] Amendments Act [FAA].”
The ACLU goes on to report, “The government more than quadrupled its use of secret court subpoenas, known as 215 orders, which give the government access to “any tangible thing,” including a wide range of sensitive information such as financial records, medical records, and even library records. In 2010, the FBI made 96 applications, up from just 21 in 2009.”
The Assistant Attorney General points out, “The FISC did not deny, in whole or in part, any such application filed by the Government during calendar year 2010.”
“There was also a huge increase in NSLs, which allow the FBI to demand records related to a broad range of personal information, including financial records, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, and even the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website, all without the permission or supervision of a court,” the ACLU continues.
The ACLU continues, “In 2010, the FBI more than doubled the number of U.S. persons it surveilled with NSLs, requesting 24,287 NSLs on 14,212 people, up from 14,788 NSLs on 6,114 people the year before. The FBI also increased its electronic and physical surveillance, making 1,579 applications to wiretap and physically search individuals’ property last year, up from 1,376 the year before.”
In just a few weeks, according to the ACLU, “three of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire: the aforementioned 215 orders; the roving wiretap provision that allows the government to listen in on phone calls without specifically identifying a phone line for their tap, even a target; and the ‘lone wolf provision,’ which has never been used, but nevertheless allows the government to conduct surveillance on non-U.S. citizens who have no connection to a terrorist organization.”
They conclude, “This report is yet another example of the need for reform. For nearly 10 years, the Patriot Act has allowed the government to abuse the privacy of innocent Americans by spying on them without cause accountability.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”In an editorial appearing this morning, the Sacramento Bee argues that “President Obama’s foreign policy looks like President Bush’s.”[/i]
Not according to the Davis Peace Coalition. They are still protesting Bush’s Iraq war, while ignoring Obama’s two current wars.
Yesterday I looked at the DPC website to see if maybe, just maybe, they would have anything to say about the slaughter going on in Syria. Not a word. Nothing about Yemen or any other hotspots. The closest they had was a piece by one of their members defending Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Never mind that the DPC’s good friends, the ayatollahs, were busy mowing down home-grown Iranian protesters, holding two California hikers hostage, funding the largest three terrorist organizations in the Arab world, and training the Syrian thugs in how to kill demonstrators. Nice guys, those theocratic Iranians.
Here is the link ([url]http://www.davispeace.org/Articles/Article.44.html[/url]) to the DPC’s pro-Iran propaganda.
Obama is all about big gov’t and that gov’t knows best, so it is no surprise that gov’t surveillance is up, not down under his watch. Obama has vigorously used gov’t powers to go after anyone who doesn’t agree with him… look what he is doing in regard to Boeing… trying to use the NLRB to prevent Boeing from setting up a non-union shop in South Carolina… pure thuggery…
So, you on the left… you were angry at Bush for allowing enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e., water boarding) of terrorists. You labeled this “torture” and demanded Bush tried for war crimes Obama came out against these practices. Then you voted him in office. Now, not only do we continue these practices, we also condone just assassinating unarmed terrorists. So Bush cannot water board terrorists, but Obama can shoot them in the head.
You on the left also howled at each indication that Bush was keeping war-time secrets from the public. “Bush lied people died”, was one of your favorite chants.
No nary a peep even though the Obama administration appears to have grown more secretive and less transparent.
Jeff, the left is okay with it because it’s their guy doing it now. Obama has lied more than Bush ever did.
[quote]No nary a peep even though the Obama administration appears to have grown more secretive and less transparent.[/quote]
Excellent point.
[quote]Jeff, the left is okay with it because it’s their guy doing it now. Obama has lied more than Bush ever did.[/quote]
Isn’t the hypocrisy on the left astounding on this issue?
Rusty49, I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with this obvious hypocrisy had the left been more civil and less vitriolic in their treatment of Bush. They became unhinged over these things. Now they are celebrating in the street over the killing of Bin Laden… a killing made possible by these enhanced interrogation techniques. I have heard a few comments from people with left-leaning tendencies that they were “uncomfortable” that Bin Laden was shot and not tried… and disappointed that people were celebrating his killing. However, the volume of this chatter is about .0001 % of what it was during Bush torturegate.
Looking for consistency on this topic that would indicate a level of objectivity from my friends on the left… I find little. For me it is another indication that the intellectual rigor they claim is more apt to be used to fight ideological wars rather than to seek balance and truth.
Clearly you folks don’t read Daily Kos.
Don: I have tried to read that site, but I find it cluttered and there is a complete lack of any journalistic standards that I am familiar with. The despicable Huffington Post at least tries to be a news site… separating authored content from the blogger junk. However, there is not much there in objection to Obama killing Osama.
I think though, instead of pointing to one or two insignificant sources in the new media, we should focus instead on the main scream media. Also, we should analyze what all the lefty leaders are saying, how frequently they are saying it, and loud they are saying it. There is barely a whimper in objection about Obama authorizing the murder of this alleged terrorist… while previously we were lead down a path of labeling water boarding and photos of naked bound alleged terrorists as the most egregious of all crimes against humanity.
Interesting too the almost complete lack of objection from the GOP leadership on the killing of Bin Laden. I guess they understand the importance of supporting a president in a time of war.
It is this contrast that really makes a person like me question the true patriotism, or maybe just the sanity, of people like Nancy Pelosi and the editors and station chiefs of just about every major news source.
From a April, 2009 NY Daily News report… Notsee Peloski on water boarding:
[quote]’ Pelosi has stepped up Democrats’ calls to form a torture “truth commission,” urging President Obama not to give immunity to anyone who illegally abused terror thugs.
Pelosi on Wednesday seized on Obama’s openness to prosecuting top Bush administration lawyers who formulated policies to strip, slap, shove and waterboard detainees said to be among Al Qaeda’s worst in U.S. custody after 9/11.
“It gives further impetus among members to have some kind of truth commission as to what happened,” Pelosi said. “I do not think immunity should be granted to everyone in a blanket way,” she added.’ [/quote]
… on Osama Bin Laden’s killing:
[quote]’The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. … I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. … The death of Osama bin Laden is historic….’[/quote]
I don’t make this stuff up folks, I just report it.
And to think she was just two steps away from the presidency…
Jeff, Here’s what Pelosi said in 2006:
Just five years ago, when President Bush was still in power leading the hunt for the world’s most wanted terrorist, the California Democrat said capturing or killing Osama bin Laden was not vital to national security.
“Even if he’s is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. Even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.”
Like you said Jeff, you can’t make this stuff up.
Rusty: Exactly!
It does not surprise me that people like Nancy Pelosi exist… what surprises me is how many seemingly smart people vote for her and support her. Pelosi does not only represent a single failure of leadership, she represents a massive failure of so many voters to recognize or admit what real leadership should be. Doesn’t she come up for re-election in 2012? Do you want to place any bets that she gets re-elected or not?
Yes, clearly liberals are all hypocrites who hate America. You all have fun with this theme. I’ll just leave you to it.
Don, Well then help me understand then. Can you explain why people on the left would want to skewer Bush over authorizing a rough spa treatment to get terrorists to talk, but congratulate Obama for an authorized head shot to kill an unarmed terrorist and several other people in the process?
By the way, I did not write that I believe “liberals hate America”. I do think they may dislike aspects of American society, American culture, American policies, American business, etc… but not all and certainly not the entire country. My point was that there is evidence that, despite their strong stance on certain principles and ideas, their rhetoric is inconsistent, variable and suspect of being only a means to an end. If your senses were assaulted and you were embarrassed to be an American when the news reports were raging about water boarding and naked prisoner pictures, they why wouldn’t you have a worse reaction to the killing of Osama? Why would a leader like Nancy Pelosi blow in the wind this way? It is evidence to me that the principles she so adamantly claims to stand for are only what she thinks will make her popular with her fan base. Why would anyone vote for a leader that behaves that way? How can you trust someone that does that type of thing? Given that she was two steps away from the presidency, why wouldn’t you be concerned?
Just one observation 2day: the ACLU is not an unbiased news source.
It seems to me tbat there is no lack of inconsistency on either side. I completely agree with the inconsistency of the specific quotes that have been posted.
But before those on the right become too self righteous i would ask you to consider the following:
1)Not one of you has made any positive comment about David’s putting this forward in the first place.
2)Nor have I seen the unqualified support for Obama making the decision that I suspect many of you would have applauded had it been made by Bush.
3)Nor have the nationally prominent Republicans chosen to be consistent. While Cheney had the apparent courage of his convictions and congratulated Obama, many others chose to use this as justification for their ( in my opinion) illegal and immoral actions in the area of torture.
4) My guess is that not one of you who defend the use of torture when done by Americans would defend the exact same methods when used on Americans. I realize that mine will not be a popular position but I feel that it is completely consistent to deplore the immorality of an action regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator.
5) I suspect that most of you have not discussed this with many liberals. I have been, and am finding that most of those conversations do not involve a celebration of OBLs death since most that I have spoken with would have preferred his capture and trial as consistent with the belief in the rule of law.
[quote]Ross Douthat writes, “For those with eyes to see, the daylight between the foreign policies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been shrinking ever since the current president took the oath of office. But last week made it official: When the story of America’s post-9/11 wars is written, historians will be obliged to assess the two administrations together, and pass judgment on the Bush-Obama era.”[/quote]
This was an excellent column and well worth quoting in the Vanguard. Douhat is one of the very few columnists who makes me think even if I disagree with him. That is what great columnists do.
Douhat could also have added that Obama’s economic polices are not that different from the Bush/Paulson/Geithner era, indeed Geithner was promoted. Obama has been better on taxing the rich and tinkered with healthcare, but otherwise his primary economic policies are not that different from the last year or two of the Bush administration.
J Boone,
“So, you on the left… you were angry at Bush for allowing enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e., water boarding) of terrorists.”
Just those on the left? From no non-partisan source was it suggested that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were not helpful, if not damaging? Didn’t the National Defense Intelligence College release a report to that effect? Are they a bunch of peace loving liberals? What of the former military interrogators who believe these techniques are unhelpful and damaging? Are they all left leaning?
“Now, not only do we continue these practices…”
Wait, water boarding is currently a practiced interrogation technique? Which practices are you referring to?
“So Bush cannot water board terrorists, but Obama can shoot them in the head.”
Not following your logic here. (1) Concerns relating to the treatment of suspected terrorists and the information extracted by various interrogation techniques, long/short term effects of torture in interrogations, etc. and (2) a CIA operation/Military combat mission to take into custody and/or kill the leader of the terrorist organization responsible for murdering Americans, per the Obama administration’s stated goal?
“Now they are celebrating in the street over the killing of Bin Laden…”
You know the political affiliations and leanings of those celebrating the death of Bin Laden in the streets?
“a killing made possible by these enhanced interrogation techniques.”
How so?
“Looking for consistency on this topic that would indicate a level of objectivity from my friends on the left… I find little”
Your friends, who are the basis for your assertions re: the “left” and its consistency on various complex political issues and international affairs?
“For me it is another indication that the intellectual rigor they claim is more apt to be used to fight ideological wars rather than to seek balance and truth.”
The claims made by your friends?
“There is barely a whimper in objection about Obama authorizing the murder of this alleged terrorist… while previously we were lead down a path of labeling water boarding and photos of naked bound alleged terrorists as the most egregious of all crimes against humanity”
Apples and oranges.
“Interesting too the almost complete lack of objection from the GOP leadership on the killing of Bin Laden. I guess they understand the importance of supporting a president in a time of war.”
It is not at all interesting. You really think the lack of objection by the GOP leadership is due to an allegiance to this president, because we are fighting wars? Do you really think that?
“Can you explain why people on the left would want to skewer Bush over authorizing a rough spa treatment to get terrorists to talk, but congratulate Obama for an authorized head shot to kill an unarmed terrorist and several other people in the process?”
Yes, apples and oranges. Also, your characterization of the enhanced interrogation techniques is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of what it entails, the type of information it induces and the effects it has/can have on the long-term mission of combating terrorism. It’s not just the “left” who has taken issue with the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. You are aware of this, right?
Can you explain to me who or what the “left” is?
“My point was that there is evidence that, despite their strong stance on certain principles and ideas, their rhetoric is inconsistent, variable and suspect of being only a means to an end.”
So what you’re saying here is this: among the “left,” there are people who compromise their principles for some political gain and use rhetoric to do so? This you find very troubling and unique to the “left,” mostly?
Rusty,
“Obama has lied more than Bush ever did.”
A determination based on what, exactly?
ERM,
“Isn’t the hypocrisy on the left astounding on this issue?”
What broad strokes you paint with, ERM. Surely you have never been critical of others for similarly piling a stratified and diverse population/group under one umbrella.
“Just one observation 2day: the ACLU is not an unbiased news source. “
For the purposes of this article why does that matter? I used their quotes but the underlying report gave the same facts.
[quote]Yes, clearly liberals are all hypocrites who hate America. You all have fun with this theme. I’ll just leave you to it.[/quote]
When I made the statement “Isn’t the hypocrisy on the left astounding on this issue”, I was referring to the manner in which Bush was villified by Democratic leaders for torture techniques; yet Obama is given a pass by those same Democratic leaders for ordering a hit on Osama. Such hypocritical vitriole by Democratic leaders is internally inconsistent.
Now that doesn’t mean the right isn’t just as guilty of hypocrisy on other issues. It doesn’t mean all lefties hate America. What it means is the Democratic leadership seems to have a tendency to say whatever is convenient at the time, and shift their position with whichever way the wind is blowing.
If I were to assess Obama, he was a blowhard during his campaign for presidency, but is finding once in office things look quite a bit different. I actually give him some credit for recognizing that his former positions during the campaign were naive and unrealistic. I also give him some credit for wanting to bring some real reform to the federal gov’t – I just don’t happen to agree with the reforms he has wrought as being truly effective or workable. But I do give him credit for trying…
I also recognize the repugnance of torture (John McCain was a true leader in this regard bc he actually spoke from personal experience), but I also recognize the harsh reality of who we are dealing with – terrorists who have no reverence for human life. I honestly don’t know what I would do if I were President in so far as torture. The idea of torture makes me very uncomfortable, and my guess is that other techniques that don’t involve torture could be just as effective. (One technique that turned out to be very effective was playing Barney music over and over again!) But that is coming from someone (me) who is not really knowledgeable about these things who is talking here. However, taking out Osama Bin Laden was the right thing to do – of that I have absolutely no doubt. And I applaud Obama for making the right and difficult decision. And I do not agree it would have been better to capture Bin Laden – to do so would have been fraught w all sorts of problems – as Obama found out when he tried to close Gitmo. In the War on Terror, there are unfortunately no easy answers. I would just prefer the Democratic leadership to honestly acknowledge that, instead of taking contradictory positions whenever it suits them and continue Bush-bashing ad nauseum.
So when I refer to the “left” or “right”, I am usually referring to the party leadership. I generally don’t refer to average voters, bc I think most people are conflicted on many of these issues, which is as it should be. Life is often messy, with a lot of gray areas, with very few easy choices.
[quote]What broad strokes you paint with, ERM. [/quote]
See discussion above…
Superfluous Man & Medwoman: See Elaine’s post for answers to most of the questions you raised. Elaine did a great job articulating most of the same points I agree with was attempting to make. I see an alarming double-standard being played out in American politics, and in the American main media, on a regular basis. My issue is the poor quality leadership of the political left, and the passes they get from the main media and most of their left-leaning supporters. These supporters are seemingly intellectually agitated about everything else except the behavior of THEIR politicians. I am a righty – and like most righties I applaud the Obama killing of Bin Laden AND supported the Bush enhanced interrogation techniques used to gather the information that was used to find him (John McCain does not represent the average GOP politician on this topic and should recuse himself given his unique, and understandable, bias).
As of late yesterday, we are starting to see a bit more left-side media chatter in opposition to the Bin Laden killing. However, there is zero left-side political leadership chatter. Like Pelosi, they are patting Obama on the back with the same intensity that they were sticking a knife in the back of Bush.
[i]You really think the lack of objection by the GOP leadership is due to an allegiance to this president, because we are fighting wars?[/i]
Absolutely, 1000000%. That is what patriots do. They don’t tear down a president undermining his power and giving strength to the enemy in a time of war.
J. Boone,
Neither you nor ERM addressed “most” of the issues, questions, etc brought up in my comment to you in the slightest. You can start by informing me how it is you were able to differentiate a democrat from a republican amongst the revelers in the streets post Bin Laden killing…or your argument re: opposition to water boarding v. okay with CIA/Military operation that resulted in the death of BL=the “left” is incredibly hypocritical.
“John McCain does not represent the average GOP politician on this topic and should recuse himself given his unique, and understandable, bias”
Understandable you say, in what way?
“As of late yesterday, we are starting to see a bit more left-side media chatter in opposition to the Bin Laden killing.”
Who, where?
“That is what patriots do. They don’t tear down a president undermining his power and giving strength to the enemy in a time of war.”
You honestly believe the “right” would not have criticized Obama’s decision if it were politically advantageous or say if the operation was not so successful? With respect to tearing down a president, undermining his power, etc, etc…really? You don’t think the “right” or so-called “patriots” are not guilty of doing/attempting to do any of those things?
The whole “a real patriot does x, y and z” thing is about as trite as is gets, IMO.
[i]”You honestly believe the “right” would not have criticized Obama’s decision if it were politically advantageous or say if the operation was not so successful?”[/i]
The GOP does not generally seek political advantage on matters of national security and national defense when their actions could result in national embarrassment. If the operation had not been successful, then yes, I would expect them to raise questions… however, it would be done in consideration of them wanting the US to be perceived by the rest of the world as being in a position of strength. In fact, that would drive the attack against the president for his failure… because the failure would make us appear bumbling and weak.
That is a difference between the behavior of the Democrat party and the Republican party on matters of national security and defense: the Democrats don’t value the perspective that the US is the most powerful nation on the planet and hence do not care that the US would be embarrassed or appear weaker pursuing some politically-advantageous attack against a GOP president. Contrastingly, the GOP not only values the belief that the US is the strongest and most successful nation on the planet, but the GOP party will continue to make it a primary consideration in matters of politics.
[i] “John McCain does not represent the average GOP politician on this topic and should recuse himself given his unique, and understandable, bias”
Understandable you say, in what way?[/i]
John McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured. Of course he has a visceral and emotional opposition to the practice of water boarding. Although I respect his opinion, it is too biased to be counted as a primary policy driver.
Lefty chatter about the Osama killing: [url] http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RosieODonnell-OsamabinLaden-killed-SEALs/2011/05/11/id/395929%5B/url%5D
Link might be broken in the previous. Try this…
[url]http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/RosieODonnell-OsamabinLaden-killed-SEALs/2011/05/11/id/395929[/url]
[quote]Neither you nor ERM addressed “most” of the issues, [/quote]
I thought I made my position pretty clear… and Jeff Boone/rusty49 did an excellent job of laying out Pelosi’s contradictory statements…
[quote]John McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured. Of course he has a visceral and emotional opposition to the practice of water boarding. Although I respect his opinion, it is too biased to be counted as a primary policy driver. [/quote]
It is bc McCain experienced torture first hand that I think his opinion counts more than anyone else’s. The rest of us really speak from total ignorance… just my opinion…
ERM,
“I thought I made my position pretty clear… and Jeff Boone/rusty49 did an excellent job of laying out Pelosi’s contradictory statements…”
You qualified your use of “the left” when referring to their purported hypocrisy on the issue. This was done so by presenting two quotes in which Pelosi apparently states that even if we caught Osama, it wouldn’t necessarily be a big deal…flash forward to present day she now finds it a significant moment. Okay, so the left is comprised of hypocrites, at least in part.
Now, that is hardly “most” of the issues, questions, etc. put forth in my comments to J. Boone. He still will not answer the simplest of questions. Boone seems to find it hypocritical of “the left” as they were opposed to torture, yet are fine with the Obama administration’s call here, which resulted in BL’s death. How can one logically conclude, as Boone did, that it is hypocritical to oppose torture, for practical and/or moral reasons, but support the administration’s attempt to capture/kill the man responsible for those attacks? I suspect flawed reasoning, but he has not explained. However, I don’t expect you to answer that, I asked him.
He also will not substantiate this apparent assertion that torture was in some way directly linked to locating and killing BL.
My point is that you did respond to that one issue, but that hardly qualifies as responding to “most” of the issues put forth by myself and medwoman in our comments to JB, which is what he wrote. Asked again to respond, he still did not.
Nevertheless, rusty, Boone and yourself find Pelosi’s comment re: capturing OBL being not a big deal and now stating otherwise, which is suspected of being a politically driven “flip-flop,” I assume.
Are Pres. Bush’s comments, likewise, hypocritical and indicative of one GOP member blowing with the proverbial political winds?
Pres. Bush when asked about the whereabouts of Bin Laden, “I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure…I truly am not that concerned about him” (March 13, 2002). LA Times, quoting the official White House transcript. Approximately six months after 9/11. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/14/nation/na-osama14
Pre. Bush post Bin Laden’s death: “This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001…tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/02/president-george-w-bush-congratulates-obama-bin-laden-killing/
Shortly after we were attacked by Al Qaeda (funded in large part and lead by BL) on 9/11, BL is not really a significant player, he’s not really worried about him for he has run off somewhere. However, now, his death signifies victory, a momentous achievement for America, one which Bush would surely appreciate some credit for. That isn’t at all contradictory?
J. Boone,
“The GOP does not generally seek political advantage on matters of national security and national defense when their actions could result in national embarrassment.”
Really…
[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/b027_bush_mission_accomplished_2050081722-7750.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=torture,_rendition,_and_other_abuses_against_captives_in_iraq,_afghanistan,_and_elsewhere_1104&usg=__P8Nez-lTQzQTqAK8Xvf-Y1rnUdA=&h=276&w=282&sz=47&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&tbnid=XAsjajUG9fS-kM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=114&ei=FpnMTb-2BYT0tgOXm631CA&prev=/search?q=Bush+USS+lincoln&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&biw=1276&bih=577&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1[/img][img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec090c079/images/Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brookskraft.com/contents/MOMENTS/image-Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2/&usg=__zrtv7tJwlqmK61-K-3Jxyer_FSE=&h=823&w=1200&sz=178&hl=en&start=18&zoom=1&tbnid=4-drE37MbY-atM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=159&ei=QprMTY6pFJDEsAPZ78noCA&prev=/search?q=Bush+USS+lincolm&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&biw=1276&bih=577&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=47&page=2&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:18&tx=95&ty=98[/img]
[img]http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.lightgalleries.net/4bd5ec090c079/images/Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.brookskraft.com/contents/MOMENTS/image-Bush_BK01MAY03A-copy-2/&usg=__zrtv7tJwlqmK61-K-3Jxyer_FSE=&h=823&w=1200&sz=178&hl=en&start=18&zoom=1&tbnid=4-drE37MbY-atM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=159&ei=QprMTY6pFJDEsAPZ78noCA&prev=/search?q=Bush+USS+lincolm&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&biw=1276&bih=577&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=421&page=2&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:18&tx=61&ty=105[/img]
Mr. Rumsfeld re: WMDs ‘We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad…” Oops, he says in his memoir, that was a ‘misstatement’ in reference to what he says were actually just ‘suspect sights’… http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/08/donald-rumsfeld-book-misstatements-wmd
I don’t think many elected officials or political operative would knowingly seek political advantage of this or that, in whatever fashion, if they believed it would cost them their seat, power, influence, etc, on both sides.
A lot of people found plenty of the Bush-era decisions to be nationally and internationally embarrassing. There is no shortage of material and, no, I am not referring to Bush’s bloopers and follies. Although they were and still are comical.
Guess those images didn’t appear…
take your pick: http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS368&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FpnMTb-2BYT0tgOXm631CA&ved=0CDkQvwUoAQ&q=Bush+USS+lincoln&spell=1&biw=1259&bih=577
“John McCain was a prisoner of war and was tortured. Of course he has a visceral and emotional opposition to the practice of water boarding. Although I respect his opinion, it is too biased to be counted as a primary policy driver.”
It would make no sense to have an individual with such insight into what torture entails and the type of information it produces as a “primary policy driver?” Yes,that is precisely what should be done…
Why, Mr. Boone, do you think Sen. McCain may have such a problem with water boarding and other forms of torture, if it is really such a successful and vital component to the war on terror and thus linked to national security?
J. Boone,
With respect to your assertion, one which has been perpetuated by certain Fox News pundits, Bush admin officials, etc, that torture led to the location/killig of Bin Laden…
[quote]
McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he asked Panetta “for the facts. And I received the following information:
“The trail to Bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti – the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaida, came from a detainee held in another country.”
McCain added: “We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaida.”
The senator continued: “In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an al-Qaida facilitator – which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.”
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/12/3622380/mccain-abusive-interrogation-didnt.html#ixzz1MCSOQhTP%5B/quote%5D
J. Boone,
“That is a difference between the behavior of the Democrat party and the Republican party on matters of national security and defense: the Democrats don’t value the perspective that the US is the most powerful nation on the planet and hence do not care that the US would be embarrassed or appear weaker pursuing some politically-advantageous attack against a GOP president.”
Maybe, just maybe…Americans-democrat, republican and independent alike-find that our armed forces and, thus, America engaging in degrading, cruel and inhumane treatment of imprisoned fighters/soldiers/enemy combatants is harmful to this country’s reputation and safety. It illustrates that we are not the moral standard, something I think Americans place a great deal of pride in.
Some suggest that the use of torture increases the likelihood that American soldiers, if captured, may be subjected to far worse treatment than they would have faced had we not engaged in such techniques. The argument that “they” would not treat Americans with respect and dignity does not justify our use of these techniques.
Once again, Mr. Boone, explain to me how torture and our degrading treatment of these prisoners strengthened this nation, improved our international reputation and made us safer.
J. Boone,
“In fact, that would drive the attack against the president for his failure… because the failure would make us appear bumbling and weak.”
So you hypothesize… I feel like you are underestimating the GOP’s desire to unseat Obama and completely in denial as to what motivates most elected officials. It’s almost unbelievable the degree to which you can, understandably so, approach the rhetoric and actions of the “left” with such cynicism and criticism, then proceed to say things like you have here and elsewhere. It’s as if you cannot see the forest for the trees.
“the Democrats don’t value the perspective that the US is the most powerful nation on the planet and hence do not care that the US would be embarrassed or appear weaker pursuing some politically-advantageous attack against a GOP president.”
Again, speaking with such general terms. You must be correct, Democrats don’t appreciate the fact that we are the most powerful nation in the world. Or could it be that there are plenty of Democrats who do “value” that perspective, but the means by which such great power is utilized to influence domestic and foreign policy differs from this or that person from whatever party, org, etc? You really think Democrats loathe being a “powerful” nation?
Is it just easier for you to meander through life with the: it’s black or white and right or wrong worldview? I mean, really, the “Democrats” don’t appreciate how grand and powerful America is. That is a truthful statement.
“Contrastingly, the GOP not only values the belief that the US is the strongest and most successful nation on the planet, but the GOP party will continue to make it a primary consideration in matters of politics.”
Such a bold political stance to take, cloaking oneself in the flag. Thank goodness for the GOP for putting this long forgotten concept at the forefront of their national message…