I dunno, it certainly seems to drum up Republican votes.

I thought it was a way for Bush to save face.

> It is not, in fact, the way to do much of
> anything.

Sadly I must disagree Kevin: it is a good way to generate a state of continuous turmoil in world affairs, which benfits various entities.

It is also a good way to create a feeling of continuous, vague, nebulous fear in the American public, which is also of benefit to some people.

Cranky

man, that is a new low.

Even better is this excerpt:

"an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

Our government is being run by the worst kinds of incompetent, deviant thugs. Torture someone and they will tell you whatever you want to hear. I bet if we tortured Skilling or the head of Diebold long enough, they would readily tell us in great detail how their deeds were orchestrated and/or facilitated by the White House. Okay, bad example.

Our government is being run by the worst kinds of incompetent, deviant thugs. Torture someone and they will tell you whatever you want to hear. I bet if we tortured Skilling or the head of Diebold long enough, they would readily tell us in great detail how their deeds were orchestrated and/or facilitated by the White House. Okay, bad example.

Notice that the Post put this piece on the first page of their Style section, if that's what they still call it. Similarly, they buried the leaked memo from the Iraqi embassy on page A16 or whatever it was.

The Post has some reporters who are doing great work, who are being undercut at every turn by their editors. Those who read the front page or the editorial page are getting a distorted view of the world.

Torturing a murderous lunatic to extract his ravings? What? Was the administration running short on insanity?
.

This is why you losers lose! You want to be right, while a near majority (+Diebold) just want to feel macho and potent!

It is not, in fact, the way to do much of anything.

Wrong. It is precisely the way to make frightened little conservatives feel better.

Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics.

LIARS. Abu Zubaydah was very important.

Link

"A rising star in al-Qaeda, Zubaydah, 31, ran its terrorist training camps. He became military operations chief after Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's top aides, was killed in November in Afghanistan. Zubaydah, the highest-ranking al-Qaeda member in custody, is questioned daily at a secret location, U.S. officials say."

Another Link

"The PDB went on to say that Ressam had told the FBI that he conceived of the plot to blow up Los Angeles airport on his own but that Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. “Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack,” the PDB also stated."

Why do liberals oppose destroying America in order to save it?

Immorality wrapped in ineptitude.

Shorter Al: The liberal media is always right. Um, I mean, is always wrong. Um...it's right when it agrees with me.

What have we become???

Dunno about you, but this all makes me sleep so much better at night.

"Save Face" my ass. First one has to have the credibility to have any face left to lose!

It is not, in fact, the way to do much of anything.

Aside from driving up the price of oil, starving government 'till you can drown it in a bathtub, and provide a pretext to spy on your political opponents, no.
.

"All right. You've covered your ass, now."
Bush is such a fucking dick! Do you think he followed that with a few Dr. Evil "zip it" hand gestures?

What have we become???

Hostages.

Extremists have hijacked the country and crashed it into Iraq. What you do next is up to you.
.

I knew it, I always thought they are bonkers and their followers too.
How else do you explain still 30% or so approval ratings for the little nut?

Well, I dropped in hoping to get the obstreperous streak out of my system by having a good argument. Guess I will have to content myself with terrorizing my students this afternoon. Ciao for now!

It is not, in fact, the way to do much of anything.

Of course it is. It is the way to whip everyone into a frenzy and take their eye off the ball.

Some of us are old enough to remember when moral giants like Sen. Eugene McCarthy and Sen. George McGovern would loudly and clearly speak out outlining the wretched abuses committed by the politicians running the Vietman War.

Giants...now we Democrats are led by incompetent ants.

And don't forget about the tubes!

Waas, Suskind, and Aluminum Tubes

.

Kevin - Look, there was no medical examination which concluded the guy was mentally ill.

This has got to be one of your most pathetic posts in memory.

Read the story - Bush is focused on getting information. He comes across like a guy who is serious about fighting terror.

Kevin Drum and the Dems come across like hand-wringing limpwrists.

Sounds like the plot to one of Alec Guinness's Ealing Studios black comedies; roughly speaking, a national security version of "Kind Hearts and Coronets."

Of course, it would be a lot funnier if it were imaginary, and our leadership not so incredibly stupid.

"He comes across like a guy who is serious about fighting terror."

Only in your feeble mind, Whack job.

Nice links, Al. Hey numbnuts, did it ever occur to you that your "evidence" comes from some of the same high-ranking officials that were told by Bush to save his face?

Please. Try linking to evidence that is independent of the government bunglers themselves.

I'm sure all of us could find plenty of links showing the government playing up how important Zubaydah was. Suskind showed that this wasn't the case.

Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine

Isn't Suskind the guy whose last book was so completely fabricated that is was debunked by its own ostensible subject, Paul O'Neill? Yeah, that means that Suskind has oodles of credibility. People in the Reality-Based Community ought to be taking this book real seriously!

*snicker*

But they told me that Abu Zubaydah was the #3 man of Al Qaeda. How am I supposed to sleep now!

"Isn't Suskind the guy whose last book was so completely fabricated that is was debunked "

No, Al. That was Ann Coulter.

O'neill is on record as saying Suskind accurately reported what O'Neill told him.

That anecdote is simply everything you need to know about the Republican personality in one little nutshell: Golden Boy's head.

Sounds like the plot to one of Alec Guinness's Ealing Studios black comedies; roughly speaking, a national security version of "Kind Hearts and Coronets."

Actually, it reminds me of more of Alec Guinness' "Our Man in Havana", based on the Graham Greene book, in which Guinness' character passes off a diagram of a new vacuum cleaner tube as the blueprints for the latest Communist superweapon.

KEVIN DRUM: It is not, in fact, the way to do much of anything.

Bush is focused on getting information.

Wrong. Bush is a creationist. They don't need information because they already know what to believe and merely pressure people around them to confirm it.
.

Read the story - Bush is focused on getting information. He comes across like a guy who is serious about fighting terror.

Yes, indeed! Why (if I may paraphrase Lincoln), Bush has such a great regard for the truth that he spends most of his time embellishing it!

Play enough loud country music and I'll confess to plotting the demolition of anything if it gets me the solitude of a jail cell and away from the twang.

Just because someone is mentally ill doesn't mean he isn't dangerous! You'll see what I mean when I use the antenna implanted in my brain to summon the aliens from planet Klaatu!

Read the story - Bush is focused on getting information. He comes across like a guy who is serious about fighting terror.

I´m swooning!
Nice to meet a guy who´s not anchored in reality but "creates his own reality" in the best Bush administration tradition!

Like:
"I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied.

Stefan's right: It's much more "Our Man in Havana" than "Kind Hearts and Coronets."

But it's definitely not as funny as either.

This is not the way to protect the national security of the United States. It is not the way to make us safer. It is not the way to defeat jihadist terrorism. It is not, in fact, the way to do much of anything.

Bah. It's a great way to foment chaos and enrich your benefactors, silly man.

Best,

D

this is another one of those times where i can't decide if i want to 1} read the book b/c i want to know what's in it or 2} not read the book for fear of bodily injury from banging my head against the wall in frustration.

decisions, decisions.

How Soviet this all is.

"...And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.""

Cave dwellers meet shadows on wall (note to the clueless - Plato - hint, hint)

"...organized religion is for people who are afraid of hell. Spirituality is for people who've already been to hell." - Oliver Stone

It's not the way to do much of anything, except get re-elected.

Get thee over and read this from the Cunning Realist:

http://tinyurl.com/fflr3

Ah, for the days of sanity in foreign relations.

Paddy Crack Whore sez...

Kevin - Look, there was no medical examination which concluded the guy was mentally ill.

From the Gellman article, who is in turn quoting the book...

Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."

Geez, that was almost too easy.

"...And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."

this is really one of the most disturbing and frightening sentences i've read in a long time.

so they torture this guy who they know is mentally ill, (possibly actively psychotic) just to "see if those techniques work"? not cuz they think he's got any actual info, but just, y'kno, to work the waterboarding kinks out.

then when he starts claiming that he's in on things and knows about all these plots, suddenly they decide he's reliable. now, he's gotta be telling the truth, no longer nuts (cuz really, i just got back from a training that said the best practices in the treatment of dissociative disorders is waterboarding).

it's like incompentence at a whole new level. willful, arrogant, gonna get us killed imcompetence.

Kevin Drum and the Dems come across like hand-wringing limpwrists.

I have a completely gratuitous comment for Paddy Whack:

You would not last three 3-minute rounds with this limpwristed liberal.

Thank you.

It's Doubleplusungood!

The Post has some reporters who are doing great work, who are being undercut at every turn by their editors. Those who read the front page or the editorial page are getting a distorted view of the world.

Joe Buck is right.

The Post works for the Uber-class first. They work for the hoi-polloi when they get around to it.

kevin: It is not, in fact, the way to do much of anything.

we told america so....

Well according to a terrorist we captured in 2001, Abu was in charge of training camps

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/30/attack/main505014.shtml

[quote]Ahmed Ressam, convicted April 2001 of smuggling, terrorist conspiracy and other charges in the Los Angeles millennium plot, described Abu Zubaydah's role as a recruiter during court testimony.

"He is the person in charge of the camps. He receives young men from all countries. He accepts you or rejects you. And he takes care of the expenses for the camps. He makes arrangements for you when you travel coming in or leaving," Ressam said.

Prospective recruits in Pakistan would meet Abu Zubaydah, who would assign them to camps. When they finished training, he placed them in cells overseas.[/quote]

Furthermore, this report completely flies in the face of the 9/11 commission report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch6.htm

I don't know if this is true, but I don't think this is as much a slam dunk as some people are making it out to be. I'm not sure why people assume that what these anonymous CIA sources say are true, just because it hurts the administration.

This is not the way to protect the national security of the United States. It is not the way to make us safer. It is not the way to defeat jihadist terrorism.

It is the way many Americans get their jollies.

Do you think if Bush were treated as roughly as this Zubaydah person, we might finally learn the real reason for invading Iraq or would we just have more ravings from another mentally disturbed man?

Also, someone should tell Jordan, since Abu was sentenced to death

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5384560

Abu Zubaydah: A key al-Qaida lieutenant, Zubaydah was No. 3 on the United States' most-wanted list when he was captured in a safehouse in Pakistan in March 2002.

Zubaydah joined al-Qaida sometime in the 1990s, befriending Osama bin Laden and rising quickly up the ranks. The Saudi-born Palestinian was the terrorist organization's chief recruiter, helping to arrange training for new members. A Jordanian court sentenced Zubaydah to death in absentia for his role in a foiled plot to bomb hotels during celebrations of the millennium.

Is there anything that GWB can do to deserve the wrath of the Repubs?

Obscure,

These tough-typing-guys are hilarious

This one did “limpwrist”
On another thread this morning, another let fly with “and let the guys with actual balls protect your freedom”

Yeah, they are tough. Very butch too. Mean typers.

The biggest worry you’d have with Paddywhack is that he/she/it might sneak up behind you and hit you with his keyboard.

and here's another 'funny' thing about this: bush asked if torture works, so they did a test. they discovered it did not work, to put it mildly.

so of course they kept on keepin' on.

hey, all you moral cowards out there who think talking big and tough equates to balls: try using your head to think about these things. your balls could use the rest.

he was captured in a safehouse in Pakistan in March 2002

So should we assume that this guy is dead? I mean we haven't had a Terrah Alert since 2004 have we? If he was alive, wouldn't he still be "providing valuable intelligence"?

Read the story - Bush is focused on getting information. He comes across like a guy who is serious about fighting terror.

Talk about mentally disturbed! That is not a logical conclusion from our little troll.

Is there anything that GWB can do to deserve the wrath of the Repubs?

You mean aside from raising taxes, right?

In as much as their goal is to inspire fear, it is beginning to work with me, but for the wrong reasons. After all, 9-11 did happen on their watch and they were sternly warned.

However, we have seen other book reviews like this in the last few years and little seems to sink in with the Great American Public. Is this the result of an all-volunteer military and no sacrifices asked?

I am going to raise a point which, in my experience, Americans weem too selfish, self-righteous, self-centered, and hypocritical to deal with.

Two American soldiers were tortured to death today.

There is a direct connection between the way these soldiers were treated and the way Abu Zubaydah was treated.

Americans cannot deal in a mature manner with the foregoing statement - even though it is quite obvious to the rest of the world.

I mean we haven't had a Terrah Alert since 2004 have we?

No, but then again we haven't had a presidential election since 2004.
.

No, but then again we haven't had a presidential election since 2004.

That's not fair - elections are scheduled.

Better to say, no, but we haven't had the president fall off a Segway since 2004.

Sounds almost as stupid as taking Truthout's word against Rove.

You mean aside from raising taxes, right?

I don't think that a tax increase will do it either. They will hem and haw, but quickly come back to worshipping the grand fearless leader.

Thinker wrote "There is a direct connection between the way these soldiers were treated and the way Abu Zubaydah was treated."

This is a simple argument to make but a difficult argument to defend. The fact remains that Islamofascist terrorists have hardly been known for their humane treatment of captives. The idea that the folks that may have capture these soldiers tortured them only because they were enraged that the U.S. was doing the same thing is not credible when one considers what happened to say Daniel Pearl who was brutally murdered well before stories alleging U.S. torture came out.

There is a direct connection between the way these soldiers were treated and the way Abu Zubaydah was treated.

Americans cannot deal in a mature manner with the foregoing statement - even though it is quite obvious to the rest of the world.

Actually it is important, but I gotta say you are coming across as just a leeetle pompous, so maybe your failure to find engagement on this topic has something to do with how you say things, not just what you say.

Is there anything that GWB can do to deserve the wrath of the Repubs?

Maybe if he got a blowjob from an intern...nah, they'd find some way to excuse that.

The Al-bot: "People in the Reality-Based Community ought to be taking [Ron Suskind's] book real seriously!"

Poor Al-bot -- everybody appears to be out of step but him and the Bush administration.

Anyway, speaking of reality -- how about that Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher? Now there's another Republican who's been grounded by reality, even though it's obviously not by choice.

"There is a direct connection between the way these soldiers were treated and the way Abu Zubaydah was treated."

The soldiers would have been tortured regardless. Implying that if the US were nice to terrorists, terrorists would be nice back is exactly the kind of thing makes the American public think liberals can't be trusted to protect. It is naive and it loses elections.

The argument against torture is two-fold. One, it doesn't work well (people will say whatever they think you want to hear and you waste resources following up false leads). Two, there is the moral argument that the US shouldn't make torture routine policy because that is simply not what a country founded with regard for "inalienable human rights" should do.

I actually imagine the argument that it is ineffective will have more traction with the general public, but in any case they are both good arguments.

Two American soldiers were tortured to death today.

There is a direct connection between the way these soldiers were treated and the way Abu Zubaydah was treated.

More serious reply to Thinker than my previous post:

Are you in fact suggesting that the torture of our two soldiers was quid pro quo for detainee abuse, Abu Graib, Gitmo, etc?

Or are you saying that these sorts of heinous acts are an unavoidable byproduct of the kind of conflict we are currently engaged in?

Or perhaps something else?

Where's American Hawk?

This is a simple argument to make but a difficult argument to defend. The fact remains that Islamofascist terrorists have hardly been known for their humane treatment of captives. The idea that the folks that may have capture these soldiers tortured them only because they were enraged that the U.S. was doing the same thing is not credible when one considers what happened to say Daniel Pearl who was brutally murdered well before stories alleging U.S. torture came out.

That's assuming, of course, that it's the same people, which is not an assumption you have any reason for making. There is no large mass of "Islamofacists" except inside your head; there are, instead, disparate groups with disparate goals, methods and memberships. Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by Pakistani and Arab Al Qaeda men in Pakistan in 2001; they would have done what they would have done regardless.

The soldiers, on the other hand, were captured after a firefight with Iraqi rebels in Iraq in 2006. The overwhelming of Iraqis we're fighting now weren't our enemies before we invaded; in fact the resistance exists solely in response to our presence there. It's possible that some or all of the Iraqis who tortured our soldiers were themselves relatives of Iraqis who'd been killed, tortured, or mistreated in some other way by American forces.

Bush: fighting terror
Democrats: hand-wringing

There is a direct connection between the way these soldiers were treated and the way Abu Zubaydah was treated.

I would say there is truth to this, but maybe not in the most obvious way. The fact is, "Islamists" have been tortured for decades in authoritarian countries. Just look at Nasr's egypt and it's treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Aiman Az-Zawahiri came out of that system. It seems to me that the type of violence we are seeing inflicted by Jihadis is a direct outgrowth of the kind of violence that they faced in their own countries.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo didn't make the Jihadis more violent, but it has created more Jihadis which insures that the violence will continue to escalate.

It's hard to think of the Republican Organization as a political party, the more we learn the more it is obvious that it is really just a criminal conspiracy. Politicians have principles and discpline their own. The republicans do not.

How much longer will republicans base allow their party to be controlled by these arrogantly incompetent criminals?

I suppose I should STFU while waiting for my own little fiasco to cool. Instead I'll fire out this assessment.
Torture is both ineffective and unnecessary. Is is also corrosive to good order and discipline. Throw that in with the escalation of ill will it will cause and its use becomes totally unprofessional.

He is the person in charge of the camps. He receives young men from all countries. He accepts you or rejects you. And he takes care of the expenses for the camps. He makes arrangements for you when you travel coming in or leaving.

Jeff, this actually fits reasonably well with what the Gellman review of Suskind's book said:

he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States."

So Zubaydah was the flunky who got you your plane tickets, etc. Criminal, yes (if sane). But not "one of the top operatives," etc.

It's possible that some or all of the Iraqis who tortured our soldiers were themselves relatives of Iraqis who'd been killed, tortured, or mistreated in some other way by American forces.

The Bush administration argument for torture is to find out where the next planned atrocity is going to take place. From this point of view the Bush administration tortured Zubaydah. It is quite possible the two unfortunate soldiers, who did not deserve their fate, were tortured to find out which village was going to be designated the next Haditha.

Logic works like that. If we, the US, can use torture to determine pending atrocities, so can those designated our enemies. It does not matter if it is effective. What matters is they are trying to stop an atrocity.

I think it exposes the real reason for torture: providing pleasure by making opponents suffer. Bush and his supporters obtain pleasure knowing an Arab terrorist is tortured and the insurgents and their supporters obtain pleasure torturing known invaders. For both sides of the conflict, the pleasure derived from torture is masked by trying to uncover some future crime.

Do you think this debacle will force future leaders to consider war after exhausting other options? At least leaders that understand history.

Anderson: So Zubaydah was the flunky who got you your plane tickets, etc. Criminal, yes (if sane). But not "one of the top operatives," etc.

D'oh! I get it now: Zubaydah was the Duty Foggo of al Queda.

Except, you know, mentally ill.

Yeah, don't know that either one was exactly crucial to operation of their respective organizations.

The soldiers would have been tortured regardless. Implying that if the US were nice to terrorists, terrorists would be nice back is exactly the kind of thing makes the American public think liberals can't be trusted to protect.

Exactly, that's not really the best argument against torture - though there are many other excellent arguments against it:

the US shouldn't make torture routine policy because that is simply not what a country founded with regard for "inalienable human rights" should do.

How's this one - if the US were nice to detainees (ie. folks who have not been tried or convicted of terrorism) and if the US didn't blow up civillians in collateral damage, then when the terrorists DO torture detainees or kill civillians, then moderate Liberals (all except for die-hard pacifists) would be more likely to side with the US, and the country would be unified in it's efforts, and there wouldn't be all this dissent and division.

Instead, Bush tortures untried, unconvicted detainees, and kills civillians. Thus driving a wedge between his domestic liberals and conservatives, which serves him well in elections:

. . .It is naive and it loses elections. . .

. . . which are more important than respecting human rights?

Personally - I think that Bush could have taken a different road in all this. He could have told the truth about WMD, and STILL have justified an invasion. He could have assembled a competent plan, he could have ensured that detainees were treated within the Geneva Conventions, and not tortured, and he could have awarded contracts under a regular bidding system, he could have authorized and pushed for more oversight, he could have scratched up a large enough force to actually secure the people of Iraq in the aftermath, possibly not disbanding the Iraqi Army, he could have played hardball with Pakistan and gotten bin Laden and AQ Khan in custody, he could have played hardball with Turkey to get a staging ground for a northern force - he *could* have done all these things, and it would have united this country. Moderate Liberals (not talking about DINO's like LIEberman) would have stood with him, and he'd be approved in the 60-70 range, instead of 33.

But he, and Rove, chose to do things in a way that liberals would find outrageous, because they purposely wanted to divide the country, and tap into the wingnut base.

Not because that would represent more votes. But because they are hate-filled evil little men, who enjoy the suffering of others, and the exclusion of people they don't like from America's economy, and America's political system.

cyntax >"...Except, you know, mentally ill..."

BOTH are & were

Such is the ReThuglican Mafia

"...the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion...but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington

"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence." – Gary Lloyd

Furthermore, this report completely flies in the face of the 9/11 commission report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch6.htm

Too funny!

Apparently Ron Suskind's story escaped the 9/11 Commission too! Stupid, stupid 9/11 Commission!!! When you wrote all those things about how Zubaydah was in charge of part of the Millenium Plot, didn't you know that Zubaydah was just a low-level, insane (literally) flunkie???

How could the 9/11 Commission be that credulous?

Oh, right. Porbably because 9/11 Commission was right on target and Ron Suskind is making sh*t up - just like when Ron Suskind made up sh*t for his Paul O'Neill book - sh*t that was debunked by Paul O'Neill himself!

But I guess those on the extremist left will believe anything... like they'll that Ron Suskind writes non-fiction, and that the 9/11 Commission was incompetent.

Here Al

Read this.
Or, better yet,
have someone who knows how read it to you.

http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html

the 9/11 Commission was incompetent

Amen to that. Although to be fair its hands were tied by certain political realities, and it did have a few positive contributions.

Oh, right. Porbably because 9/11 Commission was right on target and Ron Suskind is making sh*t up -

9/11 Commission?! Did someone say 9/11 Commission? The same 9/11 Commission that found:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Oh, right. That 9/11 Commission.

I think it exposes the real reason for torture: providing pleasure by making opponents suffer.
Posted by: Hostile on June 20, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Duh.

This is not the way to protect the national security of the United States. It is not the way to make us safer. It is not the way to defeat jihadist terrorism.

Nor is this:

SAN FRANCISCO Military investigators have learned that two soldiers shot to death in Iraq in 2004 were murdered by Iraqi civil-defense officers patrolling with them.

The deaths of 34-year-old Army Specialist Patrick McCaffrey Senior of Tracy and 33-year-old First Lieutenant Andre Tyson of Riverside occurred on June 22nd, 2004. They were officially attributed to an ambush during a ground patrol near Balad, Iraq

But the Army's Criminal Investigation Division has been probing the circumstances for several months. Investigators found that one or more of the Iraqis attached to the American soldiers turned on their American partners and fired at them. A military official official spoke on condition of anonymity because it military did not plan to release the results of the report publicly until Wednesday.

These tough-typing-guys are hilarious

Pierre,

Yes. They have a lot in common with Bush. They think they're tough because they're eager to send others to fight in their place.

To Frequency:

Bush isn't "fighting terror."

He's creating Islamic extremists. He's wasting our military power on a futile, quixotic, counterproductive exercise in "nation-building." He's diverting taxpayer dollars to his friends in the machinery of death industry. He's shifting the tax burden to the middleclass. He's bankrupting our great nation.

That's what Bush, the worst president in our great nation's history, is doing.

Do you suppose anything like that ever happened in the wars that the US won?

It is so funny, Kevin Drum and his merry band of Bozos think their incessant whining and carping will HELP the Democrats this November.

> this is another one of those times where
> i can't decide if i want to 1} read the
> book b/c i want to know what's in it or
> 2} not read the book for fear of bodily
> injury from banging my head against the
> wall in frustration.

I have compromised by (1) buying the books to support the authors (2) putting them on the shelf because reading them would make me throw up.

Perhaps my grandchildren can use them as a resource for their college term papers. If the United States is still a functioning nation by then. You're doin' a heckofa job Decider!

Cranky

Speaking of Suskind, he's on the Beard right now relating how the CIA concluded from signals intelligence prior to the 2004 election that bin Laden wanted Bush re-elected. . . basically because he was a predictable warmongering boob who was the best possible recruiter for Al Qaeda that they could ever hope for.

Apparently he even had a Bush/Cheney '04 sticker on the back of his gas- guzzling pickup. ; )

I can see why this book has the wingers pissing their pants.

I think it exposes the real reason for torture: providing pleasure by making opponents suffer.

A majority of Americans think torture is justified, at least sometimes.

How can you stand to live in a country, and to be surrounded by so many people, whom you hate and despise so much?

Still waiting for answers to these questions.

1) Why did a former terrorist in 2001 testify that Abu Zubaydah was in charge of training camps, if he only was involved in "minor logistics?"

2) Why is Jordan convinced that Abu Zubaydah played a key role in the millenium bombings, if he was only involved in "minor logistics"

3) Why was the 9/11 commission report of Abu Zubaydah completely at odds with what Suskind says?

osama,

Personally - I think that Bush could have taken a different road in all this. He could have told the truth about WMD, and STILL have justified an invasion.

So you don't, in fact, oppose the invasion of Iraq as a matter of principle or substance given the circumstances, you're just mad-as-hell about the "way" it was done.

Er, okaaaaay.

When will Kevin Drum blog about TruthOut's lame story about how they learned Karl Rove was really indicted??

>

It is so funny, Kevin Drum and his merry band of Bozos think their incessant whining and carping will HELP the Democrats this November

That's the difference between a member of the Cult of Bush and everyone else. This thread isn't about the November elections. It's about the stupid crap that was done in your name. Forget the "Red vs. Blue" bull for one second and take a good look at what the world looks like when people like you are in charge.

Shorter Al: Smear! Smear! Can I have my dinner from the dollar menu now, Rendon Group?

This comments section is an absolute goldmine for paid trolls. If Kevin had the balls to ban them, they'd be turning tricks on the street within days.

This comments section is an absolute goldmine for paid trolls.

Gawd, the trolls are out today in force. Red Dawn was on last night, I swear... I'm sure your tivo grabbed it, in case you missed it.

How can you stand to live in a country, and to be surrounded by so many people, whom you hate and despise so much?

Because those people will, eventually, die off, like the generation of slaveholders.

Oh, and because some people cherish the ideals of a country over the fluctuating opinions of some of those who live in it.

Which poses the question: how can the trolls stand to live in a country founded on principles that they so obviously despise? Because they're gutless chickenshit beneficiaries of it?

"A NEW KIND OF WAR IN WHICH ACTION AND EVIDENCE WERE CONSCIOUSLY DIVORCED"

If this narrative is true it goes way beyond shameful.

Indeed, if there is a Dante-like hell... Bush will find himself in some inner circle... forever being pummeled in the face by Iraqi shoes.

If that doesn't seem like punishment enough... just imagine his swollen puss being blistered and reblistered by the endless blows.

Don P. GOP: How can you stand to live in a country, and to be surrounded by so many people, whom you hate and despise so much?

This from the guy who has alienated everyone here and will argue with anybody just to argue? Who has zero allies even among the trolls except for pathetic Charlie? Who is universally ridiculed online and in real life?

PS---> that's how God saves face.

Sorry Anderson I missed your comments earlier. I think you're ignoring this part

"He is the person in charge of the camps.

I don't see how a person in charge of the camps could be said to only be involved in minor logistics

Look, I don't know what's true. But I'm a little bothered that some are making categorical accusations before considering reasons that this may be false. We should not make categorical accusations until we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives that would show innocence. And this goes for both parties.

And honestly I expect more of Kevin Drum.

He is the person in charge of the camps.

Like in the Ernest movies! But I have to say, "Ernest goes to the Hindu Kusht Mountains" was a tad looooong, if you know what I mean.

Unlikely, Chuckles. Some believe you two are one and the same, given the complete idiocies you both spout, but you two have different personality quirks and verbal tics.

Of course, this would be easier if you had the courage of your convictions and actually restricted yourself to a single login instead of using multiple personalities, not to mention lying about whether you are, in fact, using multiple personalities, but such is life among the trolls.

So you don't, in fact, oppose the invasion of Iraq as a matter of principle or substance given the circumstances, you're just mad-as-hell about the "way" it was done.
Posted by: GOP on June 20, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

That's not at all what I said.

What I said was that Bush could have done it differently in a way that did not divide his own damn country. But because he let his "salesman" Karl Rove run policy, many more died needlessly, much more money was wasted, and we have a situation now that is an unrecoverable disaster.

While Bush could have won the support from more Moderate Liberals, I, personally, would only have supported the Iraq invasion AFTER the job was finished in Afghanistan (where the terrorists were), AND PAKISTAN, and done with sufficient troops, and if we also leaned hard on Saudi Arabia to clean up their madrassas and push the wahabbists out of power, and to accomplish more than lip-service reforms, AND if sufficient effort was put into resolving the international banking scene, which permits the money laundering that funds terrorism and illegal narcotics trade. No way was that aspect of this issue taken seriously.

Instead, we have Bush selling our ports to the sheiks in Dubai, sucking up to the Saudis, selling his soul to the inheritors of the BCCI money-laundering network, and cynically dividing his country and trampling the very rights and freedoms he claims to be defending.

Yes - Bush *could* have even won ME over on liberating Iraq from a horrible dictator - but there were other more important tasks he should have tackled - and he willfully ignored them. Just to score political points.

Is this news, in itself? I guess it's news that something so unflattering was allowed to get out.

As for the story, the saddest part is that nothing in it surprises me.

Wouldn't have surprised me 6 years ago either.

To those 55% of Americans that used to approve of this guy.. welcome to my world.

GOP --
you are so linearly boring.

Your 62% don't morally accept torture. As I said, try torturing your neighbor and see what happens. They only believe in any way of torturing "terrorists", which you don't define.

You know what. Cite the darn poll so we can see the actual question, and the rest of it.

And you still owe on citing present Israeli, UK and French torturing. I'll take the US as a given.

osama,

That's not at all what I said.

I wasn't talking about the other things you said. I was talking about your statement that you believe the invasion of Iraq was justified, just not "in the way" that Bush tried to justify it.

While Bush could have won the support from more Moderate Liberals, I, personally, would only have supported the Iraq invasion AFTER the job was finished in Afghanistan (where the terrorists were), AND PAKISTAN, and done with sufficient troops, and if we also leaned hard on Saudi Arabia to clean up their madrassas and push the wahabbists out of power, and to accomplish more than lip-service reforms, AND if sufficient effort was put into resolving the international banking scene, which permits the money laundering that funds terrorism and illegal narcotics trade.

Okay, so you think the invasion of Iraq was justified, as long as the things you list above had also been done.

I think your conditions are pretty silly, but that's another argument.

notthere,

you are so linearly boring.

You are so circularly boring.

Your 62% don't morally accept torture.

The NCR poll found that 63% of Americans believe that torture of suspected terrorists is justified, at least on some occasions.

As I said, try torturing your neighbor and see what happens.

No.

You know what. Cite the darn poll so we can see the actual question, and the rest of it.

I already did, in the other thread where you and I were discussing it.

How can you stand to live in a country, and to be surrounded by so many people, whom you hate and despise so much?

It's not easy, but I get paid a lot. Besides, someday California will secede, and it won't be nearly as bad.

This is not the way to protect the national security of the United States. It is not the way to make us safer.

Maybe not. However, al Qaeda has not attacked US since this "not the way" program has been in effect, although they have mounted horrendous attacks in various other countries. I'd be more impressed with criticsm of Bush's approach if he hadn't been so darn successful.

Recent polls confirm that only 63% of Americans now disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president, compared to 64% just last month. He's on a roll.

off topic, this item on Darfur is interesting:

http://louminatti.blogspot.com/2006/06/darfur-its-americas-fault.html

BTW: we're back into the 40% in Rassmussen, jussumbody ; )
Posted by: Cheney

40% is the lowest he's ever been in rasmussen, jackass ... he hasn't budged from there for the last 4 months.

We have it on good intelligence that {Don|GO}P is, in fact, a member of a sleeper cell. We are sure that he approves of his own torture, which will begin as soon as we arrive at his home.

I'd be more impressed with criticsm of Bush's approach if he hadn't been so darn successful.
Posted by: ex-liberal

absolutely ... of course, since the US under bush has reduced military presence in saudi arabia in accordance with bin laden's demands, and has created a climate of fear among americans (especially repubs, who seem particularly pussy afterwards), I'd have to say that the killing of 3000 americans seems to have done its job, so perhaps we should judge that act on its successfulness as well.

This is why Bush should already be in jail. Impeachment does not begin to address the seriousness of what are really crimes against humanity.

Polls really do matter, unfortunately. If they can be faked or gamed, it gives the GOP voter intimidation, suppression and outright fraud just enough cover to provide legitimacy for a stolen election as in 2000 and 2004. I find very very few actual Bush supporters right now. The trolls here are trying very hard to simulate enough legitimate posts to help the overall strategy of legitimizing fraudulent elections. It is a testament to Kevin that the posts on Rove's guilt and complicity in the treason case garner such vehement protests and mocking entries--evidence I think that person or persons very close to the twit himself post here.

As far as faking legitimate support, the MSM such as Fox, CNN and the major networks also carry out that campaign out in spades--could not believe the MSNBC stand-in for Tweety yesterday night. Talking seriously to Tony Blinken? They seek to implant just the seed of doubt that will make vote-switching and ballot destruction possible. I am convinced that Bush's actual approval rating is in the 20s. Even friends in red states have turned off the Rove machine. So right now, there is pressure to poll samples that are more partisan than relevant--talking to far more named GOPs than independents or Democrats. I think the only Republicans I know who are still on board with the disaster are paid, or are in the FFFFAAAAR Religious Gun-Toting contingent. So Kevin, unless you want to post helpful fantasy talking points, maybe you should delete the troll posts now. They are working up the spam exactly like they did in 2004--planting the seeds of legitimacy when the country wants desperately to be rid of these numbnuts.

Know how people out child sex offenders in their neighborhoods? Someday, dear trolls, some diligent hacker is going to start putting up "your neighbor is a sexually disturbed person who gets off on the fantasy of torturing others." It'll have your picture and phone number and everything. Good luck.

Make that Tony Blankley, the idiot Washington Times "pundit." I think Tony Blinken was a Clinton speech writer who was very good.

The fact is, om the al Qaeda organizational chart, there is bin Laden at the top, and then below him there are a bunch of nobodies. You get bin Laden and there will be nobody willing to take his place. So all this crap about "we caught al Qaeda's #2!" is a bunch of bullshit. They're nobodies. Oh yeah, and bin Laden is insane too. I think that's frickin' obvious by now.

If yoiu want to see the condensed, video version of Suskind's book, the Frontline documentary "The Dark Side" airing tonight NAILS it. Absolutely SPOT ON. Don't MISS THIS.

GOP -- from your own link:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm
After a quote from John Paul II, the statement says: “As followers of Jesus, we must state clearly and unequivocally that torture violates the basic human dignity afforded all of God’s children, and is never morally acceptable. On this two-year anniversary of the revelations of the cruel, inhumane and humiliating treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison -- the first of numerous revelations regarding institutionalized torture practices in the U.S. war on terrorism -- we reiterate our church’s profound respect for the dignity of all persons and reject as antithetical to Christianity any and all justifications for the use of torture.”

Of course, the Pope only leads a small minority of Christians.

Funny how Pew angle it slightly differently from you. Liberal biased pussies.
August 2004, Pew:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=866

November 2005, Pew: Public more willing to accept torture than opinion leaders:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1019

Abu Zubaydah's torture, inspired by the political needs of George W. Bush's regime, led to the years-long illegal detention of Jose Padilla. It led to memos "legalizing"torture, an effort to cover the CIA's rears in retrospect.

The cave-in of Tenet's CIA to the predetermined agenda of this crony regime led to the abandonment of the fourth amendment, the violation of our own and international laws, and, of course, to an illegal, unnecessary, unwinnable, ruinous war. God damn them all to hell. And God damn the toadies and functionaries and propagandists who smoothed the way.

No, Nell. i don't want to wait for them to burn in Hell. I don't even believe in Hell.

I want them lined up and shot, here and now, the bodies burned, and the ashes scattered to the four winds. I want their names to be synonymous with evil, to be ranked right up there with Torquemada, Rasputin, Stalin and Hitler; so that people with the same last name change it, out of fear and loathing that anyone might think they're related to those walking, talking piles of shit masquerading as human beings.

And I want the same thing for the toadies and lickspittles who've cheered them every step of the way.

Oh yeah, and bin Laden is insane too. I think that's frickin' obvious by now.
Posted by: Pocket Rocket on June 20, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

He *does* seem to have that "Charles Manson" look in his eyes.

So does Bush.

I think Tony Blinken was a Clinton speech writer who was very good.

mr. jayarbee, that's the guy I was talking about. Thank you, Sparko.

osama_been_forgotten

Got a question for you.

As the years go by, what are you going to do when someone asks "Who's Osama?" and means it?

As the years go by, what are you going to do when someone asks "Who's Osama?" and means it?
Posted by: notthere on June 21,