home

Searching For Leadership on Torturegate

This link will direct you to a nice piece of writing by Chris Floyd on Torturegate.

By week's end, the evidence that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other top government officials had deliberately created a system of torture which they knew was illegal – indeed, a capital crime – under U.S. law was so plain, so overwhelming, and so handily concentrated that it broke through the levees of institutional cover-up and media complicity that had held this clear truth at bay for so long. The grim facts had finally worked their way into "conventional wisdom." It was now permissible for good "centrist" folk to speak of such things, even condemn them, without being automatically relegated to ranks of "the haters," the "unserious," the "shrill partisans," etc.

Floyd warns against a "line of defense ... that would allow the purveyors of conventional wisdom to vent a bit of righteous outrage at official wrongdoing without actually having to do anything about it or admitting of any flaws in their fundamentalist doctrine of American exceptionalism." He adds that Barack Obama "has given every indication he too sees the Administration's high crimes as "dumb policies" that don't require any legal redress." The whole piece is worth a read.

< Dropping a Google Bomb on McCain | The New Ralph Nader? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Speaking for me only: (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by magnetics on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    I surmise that  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others would qualify as war criminals under accepted tenets of international law.  No one in the Democratic Party establishment wants to touch this -- not even my beloved Hillary, I suspect.

    There is a dual standard here:  the WSJ Op-Ed page had no trouble accusing the Clintons of murder, in the wake of Vince Foster's suicide; and yet Reagan was treated with kid gloves over Iran Contra, over the 'October Surprise' story -- high treason if proven, and never convincingly debunked, IMO--, and even over the theft of Carter's debate briefing book during the 1980 presidential campaign.

    The US house rotting from within (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:21:42 PM EST
    the lack of prosecution of reagan, bush, north, and others over Iran-Contra is exactly why we have the  criminal activities going on at the highest levels of government, only worse and its even perpetuated by some of the same unprosecuted criminals.

    Parent
    I read a book years ago (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    that had transcripts and summations of the Iran- Contra hearings.

    One thing that stuck in my mind was the talk of impeachment. Everyone knew Reagan broke the law, but the dems took impeachment off the table "for the good of the country". I believe that is a direct quotation.

    Had only they impeached the hack. The ghosts of Viet Nam continue to haunt.

    Parent

    Taking impeachment off the table....sounds (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST
    familiar...deja vu all over again.

    Parent
    Pelsoi is dangerously wrong (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:18:12 PM EST
    bush, cheney, rumsfeld, powell, rice, others are raw criminals of the worst order. It is at great peril to the US system of government and social fabric if they are allowed to go scott-free.

    She Never Denied Their Criminality (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 08:25:25 PM EST
    All she did was wisely take a losing proposition off the table.

    Parent
    Losing (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:11:03 PM EST
    I'm not sure if she hasn't lost anyway. And the country too. We held ourselves up as a beacon of human rights. Now much of the world sees us as the criminal. We've continued to lower the bar for future administrations to act with impunity. Some battles are worth fighting even if the outcome is a forgone conclusion.

    Parent
    Not This One (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:17:26 PM EST
    We would have had it around our necks up to the November election. Congress stalled, americans pissed and a big goose egg on impeachment. McCain or whoever would have cleaned up. Pelosi may be an idiot on many fronts but she got that one right.

    The GOP was begging us to proceed, in as recently as Kucinich's last attempt. That should tell you all there is to know. It is a math equation.

    Parent

    The Republican's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    Managed to use the Clinton impeachment to take Congress and the White House. I would hope torture would rate at least as damning as a BJ.

    Maybe the Democrat's need to learn marketing tips from the Republican's. They are always better at packaging their agenda.

    Parent

    Congress Was Different (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    Then. It is a math issue not a mob issue. If you want to have satisfaction you would have better luck storming the WH with pitchforks and torches.

    Parent
    I don't see it (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    As wanting to have satisfaction. I see it a standing on principle. If government is allowed to be above the law or rewrite it to justify their actions, we are in serious trouble. When and where do we finally draw the line?

    Parent
    Draw The Line (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:52:30 PM EST
    At permanent GOP rule and 7 right wing SC Justices. The priority is taking America back from Right Wing radicals.

    Parent
    Maybe we need to show principle (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM EST
    Republican's have successfully created the image that the Democrat's are weak. By continuing to cower in the corner when they say jump, we justify that image. Maybe I'm just an idealist at heart, but I believe the majority of American's are appalled by to the actions of this administration. America doesn't torture, jail people for years without a charging them or randomly eavesdrop on their citizens. That was the big red bully, the KGB.

    Parent
    hahahahah (1.00 / 2) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:16:02 PM EST
    but I believe the majority of American's are appalled by to the actions of this administration.
    You are an idealist, most americans do not give a sh*t about the actions of this administrations. If they did they would not have voted Bush into office. Most americans are 100% behind the WOT and want vengance, not to mention lower gas prices and a stronger dollar.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#25)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 10:35:04 PM EST
    must be why Bush's ratings are so good! (to say nothing of Congress) They do care. They just need someone to lead. As far as voting for Bush, we only have our own incompetence to blame for that. Neither campaign was run effectively. Bush didn't win. The Democrat's lost.

    Parent
    Yeah squeaky (none / 0) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:56:38 AM EST
    by compromising with them. Unity and all that.

    Parent
    um...........no! (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:55:13 PM EST
    I would hope torture would rate at least as damning as a BJ.

    a BJ in the oval office, from a woman not your wife, could possibly topple western civilization as we know it. torture pales by comparison.

    Parent

    Pelosi didn't lose (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:31:51 AM EST
    the country did.  And we lost because more Americans voted for George Bush than John Kerry.  

    Americans knew about most of the human rights violations that were occurring back in 2004, if not in as great detail.  They still voted for Bush.  

    If there is one thing that would truly energize the Republican Party it would be an Impeachment.  They would rally around it like it was Pearl Harbor.

    Parent

    In the final analysis (none / 0) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 07:51:32 AM EST
    impeachment was not a "losing proposition"

    The excuse often given; that it would have been impossible to convict in the Senate, that the votes weren't there and that the country just couldn't take impeaching two Presidents back to back, especially after the frivolous action against Clinton, that it would simply mean that impeachment would occur any time that the opposite party held the House.

    But an impeachment could have shed light on the terrible crimes of the administration, the departure from American tradition and the rule of law.

    When Clinton was impeached the light of day exposed a frivolous, pernicious exercise of partisan power.  The public recognized that Clinton had not committed any breach of the public trust, that his acts were strictly personal, not an illegal abuse of power. He had broken no laws.

    The votes were never there to convict Clinton because the public recognized that he had not broken the law in spite of the efforts of the press, right-wing politicians and pundits.

    Had Bush et al been exposed to the light of day I doubt that Republicans in the Senate, just as in Watergate, could have withstood the public outrage even with an anti-conviction press.

    But the excuse that a conviction wasn't possible was never a good reason to put impeachment aside.  Lacking at least an attempt to exercise proper Congressional authority, the executive branch will continue to abuse its power, will continue to subvert the rule of law, will continue to destroy our best traditions, will continue to erode the nation's strength.

    Pelosi said impeachment was off the table in 2006 because she didn't want to risk the possibility of regaining control of the House.  She should have used a different phrase or ducked the question entirely.  After the election she could have claimed that the overwhelming evidence compelled her to change her mind. Pelosi's blunder casts her as a compliant villian in the continued decline of American government.

    It gives us no comfort that the same party leadership that shamefully ignored its public responsibility also promoted the nomination of Barrack Obama.

    Parent

    This is just wishful thinking (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:40:26 AM EST
    Do you really think that some smoking gun is going to be discovered that is going to indict Bush AND Cheney?

    Impeaching a President in wartime is a suicidal move.  

    Parent

    Impeachment (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    IS an indictment for which there is ample evidence.

    Trial in the Senate is another matter.

    Not impeaching a President who's abused power is suicidal for American government.

    Parent

    More shame to the Dems (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by sister of ye on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    for letting their party's president be impeached in a trumped-up circus with nary a peep about what a farce and waste of the taxpayers' money it was. Indeed, some like Holy Joe Lieberman jumped forward to take a lead in the scolding.

    Now, when there are serious crimes that tie into our very identity as a nation and our status in the world, all they can do is stand around and wring their hands, whining that "it's not bad enough" or "we'll be seen as partisan."

    Well, I'll sell you a clue, guys. Partisan isn't of itself a dirty word. Not when what your party is fighting for is humanity and decency and the rule of law itself.

    Huh, (1.00 / 0) (#27)
    by bocajeff on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:40:57 PM EST
    She's a leader because she went to someone's graduation? Guliani went to dozens of funerals and weddings (even giving away the bride after their fathers were murdered), would you call that leadership as well?

    It's a nice gesture, but hardly Peace Prize worthy...

    This is not new news and that (none / 0) (#1)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:40:31 PM EST
    the dems in wash. know and knew and did nothing says a lot. So why is it such news now?

    It Is New (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    It began last Sunday with the launch of a remarkable series by McClatchy Newspapers, detailing the torture, brutality, injustice and murder that has riddled the Bush gulag from top to bottom. Then came fiery Senate hearings, in which long-somnolent legislators finally bestirred themselves to confront and denounce some of the torture system's architects, including Dick Cheney pointman William Haynes III, who was left reeling, shuffling, dissembling - and bracing for perjury charges after his blatantly mendacious testimony.

    [snip]

    As we noted here a few weeks ago, Barack Obama - who has been busy this week bolstering "Blue Dog" supporters of executive tyranny and appointing a gaggle of dim warhawks, has-beens and imperial factotums as his national security team) - has given every indication he too sees the Administration's high crimes as "dumb policies" that don't require any legal redress:

    Larry Wilkerson testified last week and Douglas Feith refused to show up because of that testimony. Lots new has happened last week and this is a great article summing it all up. But I guess your question is more about why have these criminals not been brought to justice. Chris Floyd, the author, sums it all up:

    It has indeed been a remarkable week in American politics. But I fear that the most remarkable thing about it will turn out to be that it had no lasting effect at all.


    Parent
    And Sadly (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by The Maven on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:53:07 PM EST
    any truly probing investigation that could likely result in criminal indictments and prosecutions would seem to conflict with Obama's message of post-partisan unification and changing the culture of Washington, since this would clearly be portrayed (though falsely so) as a partisan vendetta.  I fully expect that whoever is elected this November will work hard to sweep this all under the rug as quickly and silently as possible.

    Even worse than permitting those members of the Bush Administration to get away with their crimes against both the Constitution as well as humanity is that we will have sown the seeds for yet another tragedy of White House-authorized excess in the future.  And we become more and more inured to the debasement of the office of the presidency each cycle, to the great detriment of our republic.

    Parent

    We Can Hope (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 07:03:19 PM EST
    That the international community will act if any of the BushCo creeps step foot on their soil. War crimes court payback.

    Parent
    We have leadership (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:15:46 PM EST
    We have leadership.  It is Dennis Kucinich and his articles of impeachment.  If this administration gets off scott free, what do you think the next administration will get away with?  Surely, surely these are high crimes and misdemeanors.  Fight fascism.  Impeach!

    Support Kucinich (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lora on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:19:01 PM EST
    30,185 have signed so far.  The numbers keep growing!  Here's the link to the petition at democrats.com to support Kucinich.

    Politics of Hope (none / 0) (#21)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:55:13 PM EST
    Hope that when you roll over, you get your belly rubbed instead of kicked.

    We haven't had an opposition party since Clinton left office, probably even before then, but at least we had one politician in office who didn't get p!ssed on and pretended it was raining.

    We'll see what happens with Obama in office. We can only HOPE.

    I'm biased of course. Even if he does a fantastic job and changes my pepsi into coke, I'll hate hate hate him. /snark

    OT: Blue Dogs (none / 0) (#26)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    What are "Blue Dog Democrats"?  I've heard of Yellow Dog Democrats, but what are these new "Blue Dog" variety?  Are they super-liberals?  

    Feeling Helpless? (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 12:12:05 AM EST
    Try google. It is your friend.

    Parent
    Blue Dogs (none / 0) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 23, 2008 at 08:25:29 AM EST
    are not new.  

    They are not super-liberals, just the opposite.  

    To make a long story short they are relatively conservative Democrats usually representing districts in border or southern states.

    Parent