Marc Thiessen: full interview

• Part 2
  
• Part 3

Marc got a good say, speaking a minute more than Jon in the Part 1 that aired on TV. So his complaints near the end about being talked over are baseless. (I suppose it's easy to get disoriented and feel cheated about time in a debate like this.)

Overall I certainly side with Jon, but Marc sheds some light on these issues in a way that the usual right-neocon histrionics obviously don't. It's worth watching in full.

Malkin award nominee

"Here is the fact: Democrats are saying they would prefer to see tens of thousands of Americans die than to see a KSM subjected to sleep-deprivation or to have his “phobias exploited.” I doubt that this reflects the values of most Americans."

—Andy McCarthy, NRO

The second time as farce

From Yglesias' comments:

Is there a word for the process whereby a political party gets so emotionally invested in defending a past mistake that they start to celebrate the mistake, and eventually transform it, willy-nilly, into a central plank of their philosophy?

R: What do you think about waterboarding a prisoner?
D: Waterboarding is torture.
R: Is not. We never torture.
D: Is so.
R: Is not, and anyway, torture might be morally justified in some cases.
D: What?! are you crazy?
R: I'm just saying, in some cases, it might be actually be necessary.
D: This is crazy. I'm taking over.
R: sulks for a year, then finally says: I’m starting to get really nervous. We can't be safe, because you refuse to torture.
D: Jesus, we're just re-establishing the Reagan standard.
R: Torture! Torture! Torture! Freedom has never been safe without torture! Torture is the centerpiece and fulcrum of all our Constitutional liberties! Give me torture, or give me death.

Personally, I think it's a losing proposition to make “torture” the centerpiece of your brand identity. But Cheney clearly disagrees.

Ignoring the cost of torture

Via the Dish, Julian Sanchez has been reading NRO's Corner and comments on the pro-torture right's stunning stupidity:

[I]f it seems as though torture ever yields important and actionable intelligence more quickly than alternative methods, we’re supposed to take it for granted that this completes the necessary utilitarian analysis. And this is just absurd. How does torture affect the willingness of enemy combatants to surrender? How much does it complicate our relations with allies? How many people does it help to radicalize against the United States? How many non-radicals does it leave sufficiently disgusted that they’re less motivated to assist the U.S. in fighting radicalism in their communities? You’ll notice that torture-fans never really attempt to deal remotely seriously with any of these questions; they just babble inanities about how Fanatics Will Hate Us No Matter What. Which, of course, some will—but that’s hardly to the point, is it?

What is this 'rule of law' and 'due process' you speak of?

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City.

Update: Redstate goes bonkers. The action alert I also received:

Stop Obama From Importing Terrorists Stateside

[..] the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

Horror of horrors!

"Under the Rightwing Rock"

Every time I think about maybe possibly voting Republican in the future, some bozo neocon opens his mouth and reminds me of the kind of people I'd be putting in government....here's Andrew:

If you don't think Bush's and Cheney's embrace of torture-as-policy has had a profound effect, check out this instant response to Fort Hood from Mark Noonan in the neocon camp:

A terrible event - but I don’t want anyone to call it an “act of violence” or “a terrible tragedy”. It was an attack - one or more men decided with malice to attack a US military base. We need to get right down to the bottom of this - and, liberals, if the stories of accomplices in custody are true, this is where harsh interrogation might be needed: whoever was involved in this most emphatically does not have a right to remain silent.

So we go from torturing a foreign terror suspect who may know the whereabouts of a WMD that is about to go off imminently (the original Krauthammer position) to torturing American suspects in a shooting spree (suspect, I might add, that subsequently turned out to be mirages).

This is not a slippery slope; it's a well-watered slide to throwing out the entire American system of government.

John Yoo punk'd

(ht Schwenkler)

Detainee rights

An NROite is concerned about prison rape, which is interesting coming from the Right. Presumably his concern extends to all domestic terrorists who are imprisoned. But is he as concerned about the U.S.'s high-profile torture and abuse of foreign prisoners--terrorists and other combatants? Or is he another one of those who believes that denizen criminals don't have rights so long as there is intelligence to be gleaned?

One for the (neoconish) rightists

Why shouldn't we waterboard Scott Roeder?

29 Democrats needed

Just got this email (emph. mine):

Dear Gherald,

Rahm Emmanuel is pressuring progressives to change their vote and abandon their principles. You can help fight back.

Your Representative is getting intense pressure from Emmanuel to pass more money for the war in Afghanistan, as well as $100 billion to bail out European banks, not to mention an amendment to block the release of detainee torture photos.

Your Representative voted the right way the first time. Give them a call and ask them to hold firm: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/supplemental

If 39 Democrats commit to vote against the bill it won't pass, and 10 have already agreed to do so.  We need 29 more.

For once, the votes of progressive members of Congress actually matter when it comes to funding the war. But they are being heavily pressured by Congressional leadership to toe the line.

Please call your Representative's office and let them know you support their commitment to bringing our troops home safely, and urge them to vote against this bill.

We've got the phone number for your Representative here: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/supplemental

After you call, please forward this email to friends in your district, and ask them to call too. A few hundred phone calls at this crucial time may make all the difference!
Thank you for help.

Jane Hamsher
FDL Action

I called my representative, a staunch progressive, and her office doesn't yet know how she'll be voting.  Check out the list and call yours to put some pressure on and get them to join Republicans (because of the IMF funding) and bat this thing down.

Update: The detainee photo suppression is gone.

How far we've come

"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to Complain of our Copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren...Provide everything necessary for them on the road."

— Gen. George Washington, American Revolutionary War

Photo: An enhanced interrogation in the Baghdad Correctional Facility.

(ht Above the Borderline)

Why Obama didn't release the abuse photos

White House pollsters must have gotten similar results:

The poll suggests that 87 percent of Republicans are against the public release of the photos, as are 62 percent of Democrats. Three out of four independent voters would also prefer for the photos to stay under wraps.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, and I think Obama may understand this, but a politician must choose his battles and in the grander scheme of things making these photos known must be pretty low on his priority list. They're only important for holding the Bush administration accountable, something Obama would rather not be sidetracked by.

Pelosi-gate

The Anonymous Liberal summarizes:

Pelosi-gate, in a nutshell: What did one member of the minority party know about the majority party’s illegal war crimes and when did she know it?

TPM says:

Focus, people. Let's not get distracted by what happened and lose sight of who was briefed about it.

Speech highlights

A passage like this is always welcome:

there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

For previous acknowledgments of godlessness, see Obama at the national prayer breakfast, the inauguration, and an excellent speech from before he was a candidate. Yes, I'm keeping score.

Andrew highlights two statements from the transcript. One of fact:

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.

One of faith:

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds

Andrew concludes:

I believe that these sentiments will resonate with all Catholics of good will and serious purpose. When we are called by God to oppose the evils of abortion or torture or terror, we need to remain civil and fair and attuned to the calm that comes from knowing that we fight the good fight...if we do not try to do better, in the passionate and righteous pursuit of peace and justice, we will advance neither one nor the other.

Here's what Obama said of abortion earlier in the speech:

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions. So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Contrast with what recently appeared at NewMajority.com, a place supposedly trying to further the right's cause among moderates:

Why are so many Catholics so offended by Notre Dame’s honoring President Obama with a doctor of laws? It is not just abortion (though that matters). It is the threat that the Obama administration poses to Catholic institutions that heal the sick and teach the young. The age old question of how far Catholics must go in opposing evil approved of by the State is present here. Barack Obama threatens the conscience of Catholics, and the mission of the Catholic Church in America, more than any President before him. He threatens by legislation and court appointments, in fact, to be an American Henry VIII, destroying Catholic institutions,"

For more nonsense, I direct you to the ever-unhinged Gateway Pundit.

Notre Dame commencement

I'll take a more detailed look at the transcript later. For now, the contrast with those who loudly politicize their own theological convictions as a matter of good vs. evil (previously covered) is marked.

This speech was a success on every level. Substantive and conciliatory, the crowd loved it. I expect Obama's approval numbers to be up among all groups who watched it, including Catholics.

I also appreciated a subsequent speaker who basically said: "We can all agree torture is wrong...this view is shared by the civilized world...it was not always so." That's true, or at least it should be true. Those who seek to justify torture today are an anachronism, and can only compete for public support with the Orwellian "enhanced interrogation techniques for terrorists".

The Iraq-torture connection

TPM floats what Ben Smith calls a "grand unified Iraq-torture theory":

[..] you have a flurry of claims that a key motive behind the push to torture was to elicit 'confessions' about an alliance between Saddam Hussein and al Qaida, which was of course the key predicate for the invasion of Iraq. That again has to create much more pressure to clarify what happened. The basis of most of the anti-torture push has been the assumption that torture was used for the purpose of eliciting information about future terrorist attacks. Whether it was illegal, wrong-headed, misguided, immoral -- whatever -- most have been willing to at least give the benefit of the doubt that that was the goal. If the driving force was to gin up new bogus intel about the fabled Iraq-al Qaida link, politically it will put the whole story in a very different light. And rightly so.

It's a serious charge, and the publicly available evidence is far from conclusive. But that's exactly why there should be an investigation or truth commission. We need facts, not partisan posturing over scraps of information that may or may not have been released.

Happily, Ambers lists ten reasons why a torture probe is more likely.

Take the Dick Cheney quiz

The long game

Dish reader:

I think [Andrew] hit the nail on the head. Obama does not make willy-nilly decisions. While the Administration’s decision to release the photos is certainly a great disappointment, I still think it may be a long play. That is, it’s a no-lose situation for him right now. He strengthens his position with the CIA and military at a time when he needs their full backing; he quells the media narrative that he won’t take on the Left of the Democratic Party; and if the ACLU or other groups win their battle to have the images released (which maybe he fills they will), he has reasonable distance from the decision. He is not going to lose the support of Democrats over this and he may gain some additional support from Independents and Republicans. This is a sound strategic decision for him.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised when a politician puts politics over principle. It does not mean, of course, that the principles are unsound—principles can't always triumph, politics is not philosophy.

As Andrew concluded:

I will note this too about the politics. If Obama wants to get the truth out, and does not want to be slimed as a partisan avenger (the propaganda line from the Rovians), it helps him to have symbolic spats with those of us who believe we have no choice but to confront the war crimes of the last administration. This has long been his mojo: give symbolic gifts to your opponents while retaining the core issue. These gestures - Rick Warren dinner with Bill Kristol, summits with Cantor - help insulate him from being drawn into them kind of partisan fight the Rove right likes to fight. In this rope, in other words, the anti-torture movement is the current dope.

Fine. Rope-A-Dope us. But let us not let the responsible parties get away with torture, abuse and murder. And let us play a smart and relentless long game as well.

Curiouser and curiouser

I'm not entirely sure what to make of Obama's supposed "Sister Souljah" moment.

Like the ACLU, I pretty much favor full disclosure of all torture-related information and evidence, because I think it's important to put these dark years behind us, retake the highest moral ground that's practical for a superpower, and confidently tell the world 'never again.'

However, a Dish reader suggests:

Obama's not saying he's going to continue any of the practices you and millions of others have rightfully condemned. The justice department is currently investigating the Bush administration, and has been good about revealing what went on, with more revelations to come. Also, it's not as if Obama is going to destroy the pictures or never release them. He's just saying that it might be a good idea, for the safety of not just our troops but of hundreds of thousands of others, if the United States did not release these photos to the public right now. That may very well be true, and if it is he's behaving the way a responsible commander in chief should behave. I see nothing immoral in that decision.

Maybe...and if so, perhaps the Obama administration can persuade the courts.

Yet lawyers are scoffing at the idea of introducing new arguments, so Sens. Lieberman and Graham are planning to attach a legislative rider to prevent the release.

It makes me wonder all the more just what's in these photographs that some people are so desperate to hide.

Succinct distillation of GOP absurdity

Via Andrew, A.L.:

...let's review the basic GOP position. Torture (sorry "enhanced interrogation") is good and saves lives. It does not incite or radicalize the Muslim world or help al Qaeda recruit. Releasing pictures of it, however, does do all of these things. Also, if we stop torturing people, this leads to an al Qaeda recruiting bonanza.

To say that none of this makes any sense is an extreme understatement.