Who’s Politicizing Intelligence Now?
Marc Thiessen, a speechwriter for George W. Bush, had access to the full memos and read them to prepare a speech for Bush in 2006. When Thiessen looked at the redacted version released by the White House last week, he noticed something strange.
He writes: “But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.”
It’s not just those memos. Former Vice President Dick Cheney says he has read other memos that describe the intelligence obtained by using coercive interrogation and that demonstrate its value. He has asked for them to be declassified and made public.
It is possible, I suppose, that a series of fortunate coincidences has resulted in the public disclosure of only that information that will be politically helpful to the Obama administration. It is also possible that Dick Cheney has taken up synchronized swimming in his retirement.
RTWT.
“Age old dictum in any war: you never let your enemy know what you know and how much you know.”
Well, Obama has thrown that one out the window already in the interest of Democrat hackery, so your concern is duly noted for what it is worth.
This agenda of Obama, the assertion of his moral superiority – well, indeed, his total superiority in all realms – is part of a Democratic agenda.
The basic Obama-Democrat agenda have two levels. There is the socialist level which is to remove individual freedom and market entrepreneurship from the USA and replace it with essentially a communist, nationalist system. This shows in his attacks against ‘wealth’ – any ‘wealth’ over the line in the sand of over 250,000 per year. This amount is defined as due, not to your own hard work and entrepreneurship, but to a moral fault: greed. It must be taken and given to someone, who may not work or strive as you do, but who appreciates the house and car and goods that you pay for. His indifference to the economic future of the US, his trillion dollar deficits, his takeover of private enterprises, his destruction of the capacity for private enterprise – ..
Another aspect of this, and I don’t think it’s from the democratic backroom, but is from a smaller team of Obama’s gang – is anti-Americanism. For someone to sit for 20 years and listen to and accept Rev Wright’s anti-American, anti-white, anti-capitalist rants – without a criticism – means that one feels ‘at home’ with this perspective. Obama, Michelle…certainly fit in here.
Obama’s anti-Americanism, his apologies for all past regimes but his own Messiah coming, his refusal to acknowledge the benefits of the US to the world, his equation of dictatorships to democracies, his deliberate snubs to US allies, his sanctimonious assumption that all a thug needs to ‘be good’, is a handshake from The Great Obama….all show this and weaken the US.
Both his foreign policy and his economic policies have alarmed the people in all Parties – and led to the Tea Parties.
Obama’s backroom guys, and I’ll include Soros, have moved to counter dissent and opposition by diverting it. They are setting up class and race polarization – and we see that already in the rants about the Tea Parties. And they are setting up a witch hunt vs Bush – to divert from Obama’s actions.
I think that they are not going to be able to avoid real trials, the Dem supporters will not let them.
IMHO, this will be Obama’s “Picket’s Charge.” (don’t know if I spelled that right)
You’re all a bunch of wimps and cowards who didn’t have the guts to stand up for Western values when the barbarians attacked us. You caved right in and adopted the tactics of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, etc.
Now you defend these transgressors of the law even as the truth comes out.
You sicken me.
“Well, Obama has thrown that one out the window already in the interest of Democrat hackery, so your concern is duly noted for what it is worth.”
Did he? Usually these interrogations reveal sleeper cells. Sleeper cells don’t maintain contact with the home base so the controller wouldn’t know if the authorities got the sleeper or not. Revealing it gives the controller a head’s up. You don’t want to do that because the controller will usually try to make contact at some point. When he does, you either put him under surveillance and let him lead you to the rest, or you snap him up and interrogate him. And so on. Tricks of the trade, but fairly obvious, I would have thought.
“Obama’s anti-Americanism, his apologies for all past regimes but his own Messiah coming”
From those left-wing folks at The Economist (link provided):
“When Jonah Goldberg, a conservative pundit, praised Mr Obama over the dispatching of the Somali pirates, his e-mail inbox immediately overflowed, he said, with “snark and bile”.”
The article title is “OBAMA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME”. Looks like you have a bad case of it. Not to worry, ET. You may yet have the last laugh. Or not.
“It is hard to judge so early in the game what the rise of anti-Obama sentiment means for the Obama presidency. Bush-hatred eventually spread from a molten core of leftists to set the cultural tone of the country. But Obama-hatred could just as easily do the opposite and brand all conservatives as a bunch of Obama-hating cranks.”
Some conservatives don’t particulalry relish that thought. But then what do I know.
bleet:
You’re sick already.
Don’t blame anybody else for your mental illness.
Here’s a comment from Mario Loyola at The Corner
“Obama’s unerring sense of immediate political advantage has led him to adopt two positions that are ultimately incompatible. On the one hand, just like Dulles, he abets the impression that crimes were committed by the previous administration, insinuating that we “lost our moral compass” and that our government abandoned “the rule of law” and that he’s going to restore both. But on the other hand, he realizes that he has nothing to gain from doomed attempts at prosecution (because there really is no case) so he comes up with the rhetorical device of “we must look forward, not backwards.”
NOTE: This witchhunt, and I have to call it that, has one agenda – to divert attention from the Obama-Democratic putsch of The American Way, including a basic denigration of its Constitution, Rule of Law, primary of the middle class, individual freedom and the market economy.
You see, the ‘case’, as pointed out, has no factual grounds. Congress approved these methods of interrogation. That’s Congress, not only the government lawyers. That’s Pelosi and the Democrats, not only a little clique in the WH and CIA.
But, Obama’s assumption of his own moral and intellectual superiority over everyone, requires him to differentiate himself and denigrate others. His behaviour in foreign affairs, where he denigrated the US, insisted he was a ‘new way’, snubbed US allies and equated dictatorships with democracies – makes this very clear. Loyola continues:
“The contradiction has angered Obama’s left-wing base. The Left is entirely correct to object that if crimes were committed, “I wanna look forward” is hardly a reason not to prosecute them. By punting the question of prosecuting senior officials over to the Justice Department, Obama hopes to be rid of the vexing issue once and for all. But the move was only a temporary expedient, which enabled Obama to avoid having to choose between (a) defending Bush officials or (b) bringing charges against them.”
Here, I disagree. There is no need to defend or prosecute the previous officials, for all that Obama had to say was; —
we were at war, and a President and Congress are obliged by the Constitution to defend the nation. Dealing with terrorists who are openly committed to terrorist attacks against our people, who have no regard for human life, their own or others, and obtaining information about how they intend to harm us, IS itself, a moral duty. One has to choose between no information and information; between one’s oath to protect the people and the tactics used to do so. Period.
Did Obama do this? No, instead, in his narcissism, he MUST define himself as superior to the Bush administration. And, politically, he has right from the start of his electoral campaign, based his identity on Not Being Bush. He had nothing else to offer, remember. So, he is continuing this tactic to divert anger at his, and the Democratic take-over and trashing of The American Way. Loyola continues:
“Obama have it cannot both ways. If he thinks crimes may have been committed, he must investigate and prosecute them — he has taken a constitutional oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. On the other hand, if he does not think that crimes were committed, then as a matter of both honesty and self-interest, he should stop giving the impression that they were.”
Ahh, but Obama and the Democrats aren’t interested in the Constitution and the Rule of Law. They showed that in their rejection of both in the AIG situation, where they ignored a basic rule in the Constitution against retroactive penalties – and ignored that their administration had OKd those bonuses.
Obama and the Democrats see the public backlash against their policies of pork-spending, of massive deficits, of trashing the power of the middle class – and are setting this up as one strategy of diversion.
The fact that Congress – that’s both Democrats and Republicans – approved these interrogation methods – and the reasons why – Obama is getting himself into quicksand on this one. They may try to hide this by blacking out the beneficial results of these tactics – but – that’s a mistake. He’s backing himself against a wall, and he’ll need to find another diversion than this one.
Hi Everyone,
Getting into the discussion late, I know, but I’ve got a problem with some of the logic on the left. Maybe someone can help.
It seems inevitable that whenever a discussion takes place about the origins, motivations, reasons etc. behind both Iraq and Afghanistan, that someone brings up Bush/Cheneys/Rumsfelds desire to FIND justification.
When I discuss politics, world issues, etc. someone always brings up the argument that Bush et al. were just using X as an excuse to go into Iraq.
Please, please, please some insight into their motivation.
Oil? Stop it…
Power? Really…
Finishing Daddy’s unfinished job? You get the point…
Rational discussion seems to quickly deteriorate as soon as I take a pro-war or Bush-friendly position with anyone in my neck of the woods. Please help.
Sam S.
Sam:
There’s no such thing as a rational discussion with a narrow mind.
Their minds are made up and please don’t confuse them with the facts.
As ET has pointed out, this issue is a distraction to draw attention from the ideological agenda to turn the US into a leading member of Socialist International.
Obama cannot win any further persecution of this issue because the defence could bring out the time context, the mood of the US public at the time and the fact that Congress approved much of the actions that were taken in the circumstance.
It would definitely be a losing case for this administration and set a precedent in American history that would exacerbate an already poisonous political atmosphere that is bent on waging class warfare.
Obama is a first-class salesman whose supporters tend to ignore the Tenth Commandment.
This glaring lack of moral compass is more than offset by their rabid judgementalism. But that’s the loony left for you.
“You caved right in and adopted the tactics of the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, etc.”
You act like they were the only ones in history to use torture as a means to collect information.