Tied to the Whipping Post

[RickBaber]

Is it OK if I post my column here? If not, just delete it....

Tied to the Whipping Post

You know what real torture is? Listening to Republicans’ lame attempts to justify their so-called interrogation methods in the name of protecting freedom and the American way of life. That, and them trying to take the heat off their guy by blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11.

The latter is reminiscent of third grade, when little Johnny got in trouble for giving Tommy a wedgie, and his response to the teacher’s inquiry into why he did it was “Well, Billy put a frog in Susie’s lunchbox.” No matter what little Johnny did, when he got nailed for it, he just pointed the finger at somebody else, hoping their “crime” would be great enough to draw attention away from his own.

The ABC movie, “The Path to 9/11”, designed and produced to perpetuate the GOP MO of blaming the former president for all the woes of the current one, was, as they claimed, “based on actual events”. It was. Nobody, anywhere, is denying the reality of the tragedies on that fateful day. And those people in the movie – real people. So there’s the foundation of truth that the movie was built upon.

Similarly, if somebody was to write a book about Abraham Lincoln being the only American president to board an alien spaceship and visit Mars, they could make the same “based on actual events” claim to truth. There was a President Lincoln. There still is a planet Mars. There is no verifiable evidence of where Lincoln was every hour of his life – so where’s your evidence that he didn’t go to Mars? Actually, that one would hold up to more scrutiny than ABC’s movie, because it is filled with un-truths than can be refuted with documentation and testimony of the still-living people portrayed in the movie.

So the movie has backfired, it seems. Clinton was kicked around, and kicked hard (maybe deservingly, maybe not) during the last two years of his second term. Now, six years after vacating the White House, in order to deflect the slings and arrows Republican candidates will surely face for being associated with this president that has dragged the country into a vastly unpopular war, pundits have pulled out the trusty ol’ flashlight and tried, once again, to shine it on Clinton, the whipping boy. “There’s the bad guy. Leave us alone”. Why not? It has worked for them up ‘til now. Clinton has been blamed for everything from the Spanish-American War (1898), to Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction (2004) to any other catastrophe that might occur between today and the Rapture (which, by the way, is Bush’s “exit strategy” for Iraq). But Bill’s decided that he’s tired of being the whipping boy, so he opens up a can on Faux News’ Chris Wallace, right there on the home field of his political enemies, and now they don’t know whether (to paraphrase my dear ol’ grandma) to …potty…or go blind. To listen to them, Clinton blew a fuse and totally lost control during the interview. In reality, he took control of the interview, signaling to non-Republicans all across the country that it is time to stand up and make Bushco take responsibility for their many, many mistakes, rather than allowing them to change the subject and/or blame everybody but themselves. The Republicans don’t like that. It’s just so much easier, and convenient, to call Democrats “wimps”.

Speaking of whipping posts, have we tried that yet with the Gitmo detainees? Maybe we could plant a bunch of Willow trees down there and make them cut their own switches, like some of us had to do when we were kids.

Does that guy know anything? Don’t know, he won’t say. Here’s an idea: Let’s strap him naked, upside down on a board, and pour buckets of ice cold water on his face until he tells us what we want to hear!

Who thinks this stuff up? Monty Python? Those bearded kids in your 7th grade class who used to brag about tying two cats’ tails together and hanging them over a clothesline?

Bill O’Reilly to a caller on his radio show: (paraphrasing) “If you could save thousands of innocent lives by torturing one person, would you do it?”

Well, duh. That question, used by his knowitallness in defense of the interrogation methods being insisted upon by our president, makes the very broad assumption that torturing that one person will, in fact, save the lives of thousands of people. You don’t know until you try!

It is the kind of logic used in the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials that used to be ridiculed by all us “enlightened” folk of the 21st century.

There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. What do you do with witches? Burn them. And what do you burn, apart from witches? Wood. Now, why do witches burn? Because they are made of wood. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood? Does wood sink in water? No, it floats. What else floats in water? A duck. So, logically, if she weighed the same as a duck, she’s made of wood, and therefore, a witch.

Someday, five hundred years from now, if “civilization” lasts that long, creative people will write “funny” stuff about the United States in 2006.

© 2006 Rick Baber
[/b]

[Dardedar]

Is it OK if I post my column here?

DAR
Of course. Thanks for posting it.

There are two truly disgusting parts to this matter and I am going to deal with both of them again.

1) The blatant and factual misrepresentations of what Clinton and his administration did to fight terrorism

2) The profound ineptitude and failure of the Bush team to even attempt to do anything.

Much of this I posted on NWA some time ago in a rebuttal some nonsense from Ash. Most of the quotes are from Franken.

***
The Bush administration, actually Kindasleezy Rice, was told that "terrorism--and particularly Mr. bin Laden's brand of it--would consume far more of her time than she had ever imagined."

But that wasn't true. The Bush administration made sure it consumed none of their time. And this is well documented (excerpts noted in quotes).

Bush put together a phony "antiterrorism task force led by Vice President Cheney. Its mandate: to pretend to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks. Bush announced the task force on May 8, 2001, and said that he himself would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." Bush never chaired such a meeting, because Cheney's task force never met." Not once.

He did manage to fit in 58 days at the ranch that year, before 9/11.

As I have posted before:

"On September 9, Congress proposed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs. The money was to come from Rumsfeld's beloved missile defense program, the eventual price tag of which was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at between $158 billion and $238 billion. Congress's proposal to shift $0.6 billion over to counterterror programs." Rummy didn't like that. This must be stopped. A presidential veto was threatened.

Thanks Bush!

In day before 9/11, "Ashcroft sent his Justice Department budget request to Bush. It included spending increases in sixty-eight different programs. Out of these sixty-eight programs," NOT ONE OF THEM DEALT WITH TERRORISM. It didn't even make the list.

Then 9/11 happened. And the next day these children "started blaming Clinton, covering their tracks, and accusing liberals of blaming America."
And it still goes on today.

Excerpts from Franken:
--http://www.avatara.com/operationignore0.html

Now you know why Ash, if he were honest, wouldn't want to talk about Bush and terrorism efforts before 9/11. Because they were a joke. Hell, he wouldn't want to talk about them after 9/11. He let Osama get away and still doesn't care where he is. This from a guy who sat for SEVEN minutes reading My Pet Goat, after he learned that the country was under attack with a second plane crashing into the WTC. Seven minutes, sitting there letting his piss dry. That's almost the length of "Stairway to Heaven." He wasn't even intellectually curious enough to be ask who, perhaps, was attacking America? Were there other attacks? Nuclear? No, I'll just keep listening to this nice story about the goat. What a spineless disgrace. People who defend this coward are disgraceful and an embarrassment.

More on what Clinton did:

Excerpts from Franken's chapter "Operation Ignore" pg 115

"Bill Clinton's far-reaching plan to eliminate al Qaeda root and branch was completed only a few weeks before the inauguration of George W. Bush. If it had been implemented then, a former senior Clinton aide told Time, we would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office." Instead, Clinton and company decided to turn over the plan to the Bush administration to carry out. Clinton trusted Bush to protect America. This proved, nine months later, to be a disastrous mistake - perhaps the biggest one Clinton ever made.

Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger remembered how little help the previous Bush administration had provided to his team. Believing that the nation's security should transcend political bitterness, Berger arranged ten briefings for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley. Berger made a special point of attending the briefing on terrorism. He told Dr. Rice, “I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.''


DAR
In response to Richard Clarke’s book, Dr. Rice asserted, “the fact of the matter is (that) the administration focused on this before 9/11.” (03.22.04)

But that's a lie.

Press Secretary McClellan claims that fighting terrorism was a top priority before 9-11.

But he was lying too. Just look at the facts Jack. Get ready, this is some powerful stuff.

***
Bush & Al Qaeda – By The Numbers

0 – Number of meetings held by Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force (which was created in May 2001)

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Dr. Rice’s 2000 Foreign Affairs article listing Bush’s top foreign affairs priorities

0 – References to Al Qaeda in Secretary Rumsfeld 2001 memo outlining national security priorities

0 – References to terrorism is Justice Department's top seven goals for 2001

0 – Number of National Security Council meetings held by Bush administration before invasion of Iraq was discussed (i.e., it was discussed at the very first meeting)

1 – Number of times the Bush administration mentioned al Qaeda prior to 9-11. This was in a notice continuing an executive order issued by President Clinton.

1 – Number of hours President Bush and Vice President Cheney agreed to allow in their joint meeting with the 9-11 panel.

2 – Number of National Security Council meetings on terrorism prior to 9-11 (out of approximately 100).

4 – Minimum number of Al Qaeda millennium attacks thwarted by the Clinton administration (only plots to bomb Seattle, Los Angeles, Brooklyn and Jordan have been specifically identified)

6 – Months that it would take for Vice President Cheney to respond to draft counterterrorism and homeland security legislation sent to him on July 20, 2001 by Senators Feinstein and Kyl, as stated by his top aid.

6 – Months before 9-11 that Paul Bremer - current Iraq administrator and former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism - claimed that the Bush administration was “paying no attention” to terrorism. “Bremer stated that the Bush administration would “stagger along until there’s a major incident and then suddenly say, ‘Oh my God, shouldn’t we be organized to deal with this.’”

8 – Months the administration sat on an “urgent” request from its counterterrorism chief (Clarke) to meet about al Qaeda.

9 – Percentage cut sought by Bush in FY2005 budget for Nunn-Lugar program to secure Soviet nuclear material and prevent them from getting into the hands of terrorists, while pushing for billions in spending to deploy an unproven missile defense system.
[Dar note: This was what Bush described as the GREATEST threat to America, in the Kerry debate]

6 – Months passed without any meeting of the Cheney terrorism task force since its formation in May 2001

58 – Number of days President Bush spent in Kennebunkport or at his Crawford ranch from January 21 to September 10, 2001

101– Number of public statements by the Bush administration on his missile defense (aka Star Wars) program from January 21 to September 10, 2001.

104 – Number of public statements by the President Bush on Saddam Hussein from January 21 to September 10, 2001

700 – Millions of dollars Bush administration diverted from war against Al Qaeda to prepare for Iraq war.

800 – Millions of dollars Congress sought to shift from missile defense to counter-terrorism programs prior to 9/11, but Bush threatened to veto any such measure.

In April 2001 the administration released the government’s annual terrorism report with no extensive mention of Osama bin Laden as in prior years. A State Department official told CNN that "the Clinton administration had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.”

[Dar note: READ THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN]

Similarly, at an April meeting of deputies Clarke urged a focus on Al Qaeda. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz responded, “No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al-Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.”

In addition, General Donald Kerrick, the deputy National Security Advisor under Clinton who stayed on for a few months with the Bush administration, wrote a memo to his successor (Stephen Hadley) that the administration needed to pay attention to al Qaeda since they will strike again. “They never once asked me a question nor did I see them having a serious discussion about it. They didn’t feel it was imminent the way the Clinton administration did.”

The Bush administration terminated a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the U.S. and even provided aid to the Taliban in 2001. (Scheer – Los Angeles Times 05-22-01)

--http://www.bushlies.net/pages/1/

DAR
Wow. I had forgotten just how painfully bad and irresponsible Bush was on this matter. Maybe someday, someday, if the country wakes up, he'll get strung up for the damage he has done to his country.

For more on what Clinton did, see Doug's new post here.

[Dardedar]

[Savonarola]

Is it OK if I post my column here?

DAR
Of course. Thanks for posting it.

As long as your publisher has no policy against your posting your articles elsewhere (like, say, non-subscription sites like FFForums). If they don't, please feel free to post them all here. We're happy to have Baberisms.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The point the wingnuts don't get is not only is torture immoral and illegal, it doesn't work. At least it doesn't work if you want true "intelligence" - torture somebody and you either get "name, rank, and serial number" or you get whatever the victim thinks you want to hear. If what you want is "where's the bomb?", you won't get it. If what you want is "confirmation" of and "rational" for some illegal course you've already planned - or taken - you can probably get that.

[JD Allen]

The point the wingnuts don't get is not only is torture immoral and illegal, it doesn't work. At least it doesn't work if you want true "intelligence" - torture somebody and you either get "name, rank, and serial number" or you get whatever the victim thinks you want to hear. If what you want is "where's the bomb?", you won't get it. If what you want is "confirmation" of and "rational" for some illegal course you've already planned - or taken - you can probably get that.

exactly. Torture is useful for getting false confessions and bad intelligence.