Tortured Logic

The CIA Inspector General’s report found that the CIA water boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah 83 times in August 2002.

Now let's let those dates sink in -

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 and immediately interrogated being water boarded 183 times that month.


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded about six times a day.

On March 28, 2002, CIA and FBI agents, in conjunction with Pakistani intelligence services, raided several safe houses in Pakistan looking for terrorists and members of al-Qaeda. Abu Zubaydah was apprehended from one of the targeted safe houses in Faisalabad, Pakistan

Abu Zubaydah was water boarded about three times a day.

"Dick" Cheney stated recently that we quashed several attempts to attack the U.S. because of that torture. He boasts 7.5 years of no attacks since 9/11. Yet he seems to have conveniently failed to mention the Bush Administration was warned about the danger from Bin Ladin and AlQaeda before taking office and while in office before 9/11. Beyond that the war in Iraq has ended up with the deaths of 4,200 US Troops and over 91,000 Iraqi citizens all comming after 9/11 not to mention the the horror of those families at home and the terror imposed by the administration "selling the war."

Something never mentioned by any of those covering the torture conversation is the true reason to disregard all mention of plots foiled as "Dick" loves to mention (sans truth) is that once these players, especially KSM, were captured AlQaeda scuttled or pushed back their plans because they couldn't count on KSM or Abu Zubaydah not talking.

Just the capture of KSM would have killed all plans.

Of course all of my tortured logic is moot because:

Water boarding IS torture
These two men alone we tortured over 260 times
Whoever approved the torture is guilty
"Dick" said he approved of the torture
"Dick" and George ignored the law
"Dick" and George should be tried in court.

I thought republican'ts ...

Hated Civil Disobedience - "Dick" Cheney approved of Torture when he knew it was against the law but thought it was okay to do it anyway.

Didn't believe in Growing the size of Government - George "Shrub" Bush not only bloated the budget but managed to move the cost of the war out of the budget.

Abhored Activist Judges - Appointed Anton Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas who immediately become activists for conservative causes ignoring past rulings.

Believe in Family Values - Proving that divorce and trophy wives are cool

Believe in Fiscal Responsibility - All this while deregulating the banking industry causing the worst fiscal crisis in my long lifetime.

Believe in and Respect the Military - They went into a war under manned and ill equipped against the advice of military leaders and intelligence.

Believe in being tough on Terrorists and Terrorism - They ignored the advice of Richard Clarke that Bin Laden was determined to attack within the U.S.

Wanted to Lower Taxes - But only for Big Business not the Middle Calss or the poor.

Believe in Hard Work - but they mostly live on investments and outsource to other countries or layoff workers on any whim.

... and the beat goes on

How Sad for America.

Did we torture captured terrorists/enemy combatants to force them to provide a link between Al-Qaeda and Sadam Hussein?

Couldn't Bush "The Shrub"/"Dick" Cheney/"Rummy"/ "Maddington" Addington/"Scooter" Libby/"Green Slime" Wolfowitz/Richard "before swine" Perle/ Doug "eye before Eat" Feith/ John "Grumpy" Bolton/"un"Frank Gaffney A.K.A. "The Eyebrow" et. al. just continued to lie?

I suppose there would be some who they needed to support the War in Iraq that would ask why? My guess is Colin Powell was lied to early and often. Easy sales were Presidential Medal of Freedom winners Tommy Franks, George Tenet, L. Paul Bremer (please promise to keep what you know under your hat) who all toed the line like good lap dogs. I know all have had distinguished careers and one little mistake in judgement under the glare of the Lord of Darkness shouldn't disgrace them - too much.

What in the world were we all thinking in our collective states of shock after 911 to buy the bill of goods the president and his henchmen sold us. What's even sadder is the possibility it was all done behind the President's back by a cabal led by Dick Cheney. The ex President may just be the one who finally gives testimony that convicts the others. Wouldn't that be ironic! George Bush reclaims his legacy by proving he was duped by the others.

Perhaps his one courageous act will be after he is out of office and recognizes the damage to the United States done by evil men who torture to elicit lies and show so little respect for average Americans they lied with impunity to their own "base" whipping them into a bloodthirsty mob. How sad for America.

Ruben, Ruben I've been thinking (Have you)

In a Ruben Navarette Jr. editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune via SFGate some great logic appears right before our eyes. It's the old shift and transform, smoke and mirrors trick. What thrills me so much is it's so easy to see. Here is how it works.

1. Take an event (Torture justification)
2. Present a fact (Memos by Administration Attorneys)
3. Sidestep (Argue that Investigation hampers the C.I.A.)
4. Brand the Opposition (Those who want an investigation as "political" and "trying to settle old scores" or "seeking perverse satisfaction")
5. Close (Congratulate Barack Obama for not prosecuting those who "followed orders")

"While thrilled about the disclosure, many on the left are furious over the reluctance to prosecute.

Such a reaction is unfair. Obama was right to release the four memos and also right not to prosecute CIA officials who acted with authorization from superiors. You'll never convince the extremes - on both right and left - but both decisions serve our national interest.

Americans should not use truth commissions and political show trials to settle old scores, even if it would - in this case - give the Bush-haters some perverse satisfaction. What it would certainly do, as former officials in the Bush administration and others have said in recent days, is hamper the work of the CIA by making agency operatives afraid they could be punished depending on the prevailing political winds." ~ Ruben Navarette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune

But Ruben you missed a spot.

Barack Obama never said there was be no crime.
Barack Obama never said there would be no investigation.
Barack Obama never said there wasn't wrongdoing.
Barack Obama never said anything about what Eric Holder and the justice department would do.

Don't gloat too soon Ruben it's not political revenge. This is really about something America believed strongly enough we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for using the waterboarding method against American soldiers in WW II. Perhaps you should read some very good reporting in the New York Times to gain some real perspective before you lecture anyone else like this:

"Those who serve our country, often at great personal sacrifice and against impossible odds, should be proud. And when elected officials simply do the right thing rather than manipulate public perception by making themselves look good and others look bad, they provide a kind of leadership of which we can all be proud." ~ Ruben Navarette Jr., San Diego Union-Tribune

Those who served our country against all odds should include our soldiers who have been tortured by countries who ignored the Geneva Convention. All policemen, firemen, Coast Guard, Navy, Marines and Army personnel know that they are subject to the laws of the land. Even the President and Vice President, Congress should know they are not above the law no matter how much good they have done at other times in their lives.

What a [Dick] Cheney

Dick Cheney is a forthright man there is no doubt but then again I once heard an interview with Jeffrey Dahmer that was also forthright. Dick said in a recent interview "

But what I find disturbing is the extent to which he has gone to Europe, for example, and seemed to apologize profusely in Europe, and then to Mexico, and apologize there, and so forth.

And I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there, both our friends and our foes, will be quick to take advantage of a situation if they think they're dealing with a weak president or one who is not going to stand up and aggressively defend America's interests.

The United States provides most of the leadership in the world. We have for a long time. And I don't think we've got much to apologize for. You can have a debate about that. But the bottom line is that, you know, when you go to Europe and deal with our European friends and allies, some things they do very well, some things they don't.

Sometimes it's important that a president speak directly and forthrightly to our European friends. And you don't get there if you're so busy apologizing for past U.S. behavior." ~ Fox News

Now that makes Dick a forthright man but it also shows his recalcitrance regarding the illegal torture and wiretapping he so often condones as "strong on terrorism." If he means he has become a terrorist he is right. If he means effectively fighting terrorism nothing could be further from the truth.

Strength doesn't come from proving you can be more brutal than your opposition but by proving you can outsmart your opposition. All Dick and George did was prove they wallow in the mud just as well as Osama.

The world is looking for leadership (Leadership meaning the ability to get others to follow) and Barack is not apologizing to Europe, South America or any one else including Antarctica. Barack is providing a direction for others to follow and they are following the United States in far larger numbers than ever before.

So Dick please get a grip on reality.

Flipantcy Run Amok

I like Rachael Madow and I like Keith Olberman and I like Paul Krugman, most of the time. Keith and Rachael have recently made fun of the Tea-Bag protesters ad nauseum as if they are a collection of nutcases and political opportunist. I do have to agree there is something strange about people protesting "taxation without representation" (which was the purpose of the original tea party) when, in fact taxes are being cut for most people. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes going back to England and King George. I find it ironic the majority of tea-baggers are from states that receive more back from the Federal Government than they take in through federal taxes (debtor states) if anything the rest of the states should be protesting their taxes going to those mostly RED debtor states.

But still I can't understand Keith and Rachael even mentioning the tea bag protests it comes across as intellectualism, smart alec and pretentious. If the turnouts were as poor as reported they really were not as newsworthy as the ideas put forward by Ron Paul even though Ron Paul is 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. Definitely not as newsworthy as Barack Obama's trip to Mexico or even the choice of first dog.

Paul Krugman on the other hand is publishing for attention when he spouts doom and gloom when, as an Economist, he should know while the economy is hurting you don't pour salt in on the wounds. Perhaps he has a point though recovery will not happen overnight. I take a little solace when he says:

"The Obama administration’s economists understand this. They say all the right things about staying the course. But there’s a real risk that all the talk of green shoots and glimmers will breed a dangerous complacency." ~ NY Times

I personally think Paul is confusing complacency with the comfort one feels knowing the truth and being kept informed. Personally I do feel better knowing we have more competent people running the government but I also understand the road to recovery is not yet paved but the road signs are at least accurate.

Keith is also not understanding we will all feel better if we nail the creators of the chambers of horror who misinformed the poor schmucks who were told to use water boarding and other torture techniques. Personally I think many of the hands on torture were probably just people who don't know the difference between imprisonment and revenge but the true evil rests in the minds and actions of those who do know better and just don't care. I know I didn't feel satisfied when the guards at Abu Ghraib were tried and the commanders in the CIA, the Military and the Bush Administration walked away free, rich and happy.

I also think Spencer Bacus should be forced to name all seventeen congressmen who are socialists. define socialism and tell us all why he thinks helping one's brother, sister, friend or countrymen when they are in need is a bad idea. "Am I my brother's keeper"

Firearm Refresher Course - oh really?

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE - Oh Really?


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. According to who? Are you saying if a person doesn't own a gun isn't a citizen? Who died and made Gun Owners kings and /or Queens? What an absurd statement. Sounds like a person who is a nobody with out his/her "equalizer."

2.. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. How often have you needed a gun? How violent is your world that you think you need a gun to solve your problems? If so I suggest you are a danger to your community.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface. A nonsensical statement made by a computer phobic personality. I don't click my computer mouse to kill, targets, animals or people.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. Seems to me the statement is made by a person wanting to control others. Registration of a firearm doesn't remove the firing pin it doesn't create a list to be used to confiscate guns. Gun control is based on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people. Sure it can't stop all of this but it can stop the obviously dangerous from buying guns.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords? Use swords for what? Nuff said

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words. Duh! Inanimate objects do not cause anything. Uneducated people do, however, using a gun can cause gun deaths accidental and unintentional as well as intentional. I was once stabbed in the back with a pencil - and lived - I don't think pencils should be registered though they can be a lethal weapon. Guns other than for hunting can easily cause human death.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms. Registration of guns doesn't restrict responsible or honest people from being free any more than registering your car, stocks, business or any other thing that must be registered. Free people don't mind registration even for school.


8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any. I know my rights I insist on my rights and I don't understand this need to secretly possess a small arsenal. Some laws are created to ensure the common good not to take away your rights.


9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. So are you saying we can't have both? I personally feel both secure and free but it seems your security and bunker mentality are more important than mine. I'd hate to think we live in a country where we cannot disagree without one of us getting shot.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved. Yes a country of laws. Do you want to pick and choose which one's you follow if so do you really need a gun to protest. I don't mind you having a gun but it scares the bejeebers out of me to think you believe you need one.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? What part of the entire statement do you not understand? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Is it possible the "well regulated" part of the second amendment has been overlooked by the N.R.A. Gun regulation or Militia regulation shows an intention to protect the country and the state's National Guard?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others. (See Above)

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. How many did? between 1999 and 2005, 207,751 firearm deaths were reported or .32/100 gun owners that translates to 1 death per 300 gun owners every 5 years

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians. I think probably at least three including dishonest gun owners and four mentally ill gun owners maybe five criminals who take away guns and kill the owners. There are probably more.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety. Our Army and law enforcement officers have guns, Our Army and law enforcement officers protect the peace, Our Army and law enforcement officers make us safe.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. You get shot to be killed; you don't get shot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer. That's not very respectful of the Police sounds pretty smug and afraid to me.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device. I'm sure a person needs an automatic rifle to hunt deer.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer. I doubt criminals care about gun registration.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson. Guns do not cause crime but they are the weapon of choice for violent criminals

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them. Only a person that is afraid of the world distrust government government tries to make it ineffectual.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for. If you have to fight for your rights you never really had them or understood them.

23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more. Registration of guns is a good law. Assault rifles and high bore 50mm weapons should only be used under controlled circumstances.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. I'll let you know when I feel like a slave or cannot buy a gun. That has never happened and never would affect a hunter.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control. Are you suggesting we are in the middle of a revolution?

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." ... and most people don't like the selling of assault rifle's over the counter

I have nothing against guns, hunting, collecting I do worry when it's insinuated a person isn't free without a gun, 911 is a useless concept, the 2nd Amendment is cut in half "regulated vs right to bear arms" Perhaps the Declaration of Independence should read "We find these [half] truths to be evident"

The Gun lobby and N.R.A. needs to start thinking about the good they do in teaching responsible firearm safety and follow up with the responsibility to others and eliminating the bunker mentality they seem to thrive on year to year.