Even George Can Spell "Loser"

I am trying to find some reassurance in the number of folks recently getting increasingly frank about the cancerous dishonesty and criminality that seems to be the sine qua non of the cheney presidency. Not that the little stick-figure dummy-on-knee doesn't also get aroused at having uncle dick tickle him into "fooling" the people. He's gotten away (so far) with so much lawbreaking and general delinquency in his life that I'm sure he still gets a thrill out of gaming the system. The system, that is, that formerly held civilization as we knew it together - you trust me, I trust you, we abide by laws, and etc.

I'm channeling Dan Froomkin here. His post Tuesday under the title "Bush's Feeble Torture Dodge" seemed to me unusually frank and plain-speaking, and appropriately so:

President Bush's attempt on Friday to bat down the renewed furor over his secretive and brutal interrogation policies was profoundly empty of meaning -- and utterly ineffective.

Bush once again denied that his administration has engaged in torture, even as more evidence emerged that he continues to sanction behavior that most people would call just that. He wrapped himself in the flag and mobilized the rhetorical straw men, but offered not one new reason why anyone should believe him.

It's worth parsing his words carefully. Here's the transcript of his remarks, inserted into what was originally supposed to be a briefing solely about the economy.

Bush: "There's been a lot of talk in the newspapers and on TV about a program that I put in motion to detain and question terrorists and extremists. I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people. And when we find somebody who may have information regarding an -- a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them -- because the American people expect us to find out information -- actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."

Nobody, of course, is suggesting that the government shouldn't detain or interrogate legitimate terrorist suspects; the question is whether or not it should torture them -- an issue Bush then dealt with cursorily.

"Secondly, this government does not torture people. You know, we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations."

By now, Bush's insistence that "we don't torture" has become a perverse tautology: It doesn't mean that we don't torture; it just means that if we do it, he doesn't call it torture. (See Jon Stewart and John Oliver, quoted below.) And was Bush asserting some sort of hairsplitting distinction between obligations and laws?

"Thirdly, there are highly trained professionals questioning these extremists and terrorists. In other words, we got professionals who are trained in this kind of work to get information that will protect the American people. And by the way, we have gotten information from these high-value detainees that have helped protect you."

But evidence of the success of harsh interrogation techniques is hard to find. Bush's insistence in February 2006, for instance, that CIA interrogation thwarted an Al Qaeda attack on Los Angeles was quickly downplayed by intelligence officials. And what little investigative reporting I've seen suggests that harsh interrogation has produced little to no valuable information -- certainly none that experts say couldn't have been obtained through traditional means.

"And finally, the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress. The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack. And that's exactly what this government is doing, and that's exactly what we'll continue to do."

But those members of Congress say they have not been fully briefed on the Bush policies.

And as for what the American people expect? Well, I think they expect their government not to engage in torture.

Greg Miller and Richard B. Schmitt write in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush on Friday defended the CIA's harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects, saying its methods do not constitute torture and are necessary to protect America from attack.

"But Bush's declaration that the United States 'does not torture people' did little to dampen the fallout from fresh evidence that his administration has used secret legal memos to sanction tactics that stretch, if not circumvent, the law."

Michael Abramowitz and Joby Warrick write in Saturday's Washington Post: "Bush's statement that Congress has been briefed on the interrogation tactics drew a swift and angry reaction from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee.

"'The administration can't have it both ways,' Rockefeller said in a statement. 'I'm tired of these games. They can't say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program.'"

-clip-

There is more at that post you should explore.

But our own charlie mccarthy-monkey is also being subjected to unusual multiple lashings by former Pres Carter (admittedly not the first by him, to the great credit of Mr. Carter, who I might have given up on too early when he was in office). This "protocol" that dictates that former prexies never criticize a sitting (semi-comatose, enraptured with the cheney-fondling, and in total denial of reality in this case) prez seems absurd to me when there is so much evidence of criminality, venality, and generally treasonous behavior by virtually the entire pack of vermin infesting the white house. For that matter, under the circumstances, I have to say as aside that the absence from stage of Colin Powell is only adding to the negative legacy he is earning and so richly deserves. He needed to strap on a codpiece after the Petraeus circus and make a serious statement. He has turned out to be a remarkably pathetic lost cause and big-time loser, having wasted an amazing amount of credibility.

I am again making use of Froomkin here. He had this today under "Carter Critique":

Former president Jimmy Carter is once again lambasting the current occupants of the White House.

In one interview yesterday, Carter accused President Bush of abandoning the basic principles of human rights, engaging in torture, and lying about it. In another, he called Vice President Cheney a disaster for our country and a militant who is "trying again to promote once again what might well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military venture."

While it's traditional for former presidents to show some deference to their successors, this is not the first time Carter has publicly scolded Bush. Back in May, for instance, he infuriated the White House by calling Bush the worst president of all time when it comes to international relations. A Bush spokesman responded by calling Carter "increasingly irrelevant."

Carter may or may not be politically irrelevant, but the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner's critique is certainly timely -- coming as Bush's torture policy and Cheney's itchy trigger finger continue to provoke controversy.

Carter's Words

Here's the video and transcript of Carter's appearance on CNN with Wolf Blitzer yesterday.

Carter: "I think the entirety of the global human rights community . . . would agree with the fact that our country, for the first time in my lifetime, has abandoned the basic principles of human rights. . . .

Blitzer: "President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees."

Carter: "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, 'We don't violate them.' And we can -- you can make your own definition of torture and say 'We don't violate it.'"

Blitzer: "But by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture."

Carter: "I don't think it, I know it, certainly."

Blitze: "So is the president lying?"

Carter: "The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes."

Here's the video of Carter's interview with the BBC's Matt Frei, discussing Cheney's preference for force over diplomacy.

"As usual, Dick Cheney is wrong," Carter said. "He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world. And here he's trying again to promote once again what might well be a counterproductive and catastrophic military venture. . . .

"You know, he's been a disaster for our country. I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed.

"One of his main commitments was to go into Iraq on false pretenses and he still maintains that those false pretenses are accurate."

-clip-