White Evangelicals and politics

Reading around this morning, I found this Pew Forum poll on political views and religion. Some very interesting things in there, including, I think, some confirmation that a lot of conservative evangelicals hold political beliefs that are not filtered through their faith. As I read the report, evangelicals see homosexual issues and abortion through the lens of their faith, but not issues like immigration and the environment. (Oddly enough, btw, white evangelicals support more stricter environmental regulations. They just don't vote that way.)

I have been musing for sometime that conservative evangelicals (and probably not just them) compartmentalize their faith and their politics. Over here, we have faith and "quiet times" and BSF meetings and the "personal relationship with Jesus as most important thing in the world." In that world, concern for the poor and the prisoner are at least talked about.

But over here, we have politics where tax cuts dominate, and government programs for the poor are derided as helping "welfare queens" and encouraging "dependency" and "laziness." Here, prisoners are to be feared and it is ok if they are executed in an unfair system or tortured if in the wrong place at the wrong time in the "war on Terror."

I am not sure why the disconnect, frankly. But I think it is partly because the church themselves have decided that certain topics and moral issues are not church worthy. They can and do grapple with the concept of marriage and homosexuality and abortion, but do not, in the main, grapple with the environment, torture, capital punishment, or even the broader issues of poverty. As I have told a friend of mine, when the church refuses to address these moral issues, they abdicate their role as moral leader and essentially leave that to Fox News (for the conservative church goer) or other institutions.

I remember well that Pew poll that showed some 60% of white evangelicals supporting torture in some form. Many of those polled said that their support for Bush's torture regime was not based in their faith at all. In fact, when asked to address torture through the lens of their faith, support dropped.

Friday morning--updated

And feeling down a little this morning.

Once again, reading the news doesn't exactly help. As many of you know, the President held a press conference on his way out the door for vacation. Nevermind that he is the most vacationed President in history, and that given what his war is creating for some 160,000 troops, perhaps he could skip his vacation this year. Nevermind.

Some of his comments were actually reasonable. Suggesting (even though I thought he was an ass about it) that congressional earmarks are a problem to be solved before raising taxes for infrastructure projects is not a bad idea. After all, one of his own party is famous for things like the famous "bridge to nowhere."

But much of the rest was more proof that Bush is delusional. Or worse. When asked about accountability--and reminded that he made that a part of his campaign--and asked how that squared with commuting Scooter's sentence and still employing Al Gonzales, he responded in the way that only Bush could respond:

THE PRESIDENT: Lewis Libby was held accountable. He was declared guilty by a jury and he's paid a high price for it.

Al Gonzales -- implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe, David, we're watching a political exercise. I mean, this is a man who has testified, he's sent thousands of papers up there. There's no proof of wrong. Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong? I mean, frankly, I think that's a typical Washington, D.C. assumption -- not to be accusatory, I know you're a kind, open-minded fellow, but you suggested holding the Attorney General accountable for something he did wrong.

And as a matter of fact, I would hope Congress would become more prone to deliver pieces of legislation that matter, as opposed to being the investigative body. I mean, there have been over 600 different hearings and, yet, they're struggling with getting appropriations bills to my desk.

Q If I could follow -- sorry. Given the decision to commute the sentence of Libby and given the performance of Iraqi leaders, is it fair for people to ask questions about your commitment to accountability?

THE PRESIDENT: I would hope people would say that I am deliberate in my decision-making; I think about all aspects of the decisions I make; and I'm a fair person.

Bush is the only person who thinks that Gonzales has done nothing wrong and one of the minority who actually thinks that Scooter actually paid much of a cost at all. Who can forget the check he wrote to pay his fine--casually. But I am sure the probation is just eating at him.

As for Gonzales, seriously. Who could watch that man testify, lie, repeat, and think he did a good job outside his mother? Gonzales is an idiot and a liar and willing to do whatever Bush asks him to do. Sigh.

Of course, as Eugene Robinson suggests:

"At least now maybe people will understand what I've been saying for months, which is that Bush doesn't care what anybody else thinks.

You really have to wonder how his mind works. If it does.

But my favorite part was this followup question on interrogation techniques:

"Q Red Cross report? THE PRESIDENT: I haven't seen it. We don't torture."

Did you get that? We don't torture. Except we do. And have and do. The VP himself said that waterboarding was a "no brainer." And the Red Cross report? Yeah, it isn't good:

"Congressional and other Washington sources familiar with the report said that it harshly criticized the C.I.A.’s practices. One of the sources said that the Red Cross described the agency’s detention and interrogation methods as tantamount to torture, and declared that American officials responsible for the abusive treatment could have committed serious crimes. The source said the report warned that these officials may have committed “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions, and may have violated the U.S. Torture Act, which Congress passed in 1994. The conclusions of the Red Cross, which is known for its credibility and caution, could have potentially devastating legal ramifications."

But as long as the President says we don't, I am convinced. Nevermind.

Update NPR newsblog caught this little gem in the New Yorker article on the Red Cross report describing some of the interrogation techniques and their origin:

"It starts with isolation. Then they eliminate the prisoners' ability to forecast the future -- when their next meal is, when they can go to the bathroom. It creates dread and dependency. It was the K.G.B. model. But the K.G.B. used it to get people who had turned against the state to confess falsely. The K.G.B. wasn't after intelligence."

I guess why the hell not. Bush and Cheney have turned America into a country that uses former Soviet Gulags to hide prisoners. Why not use the interrogation techniques of the KGB. That won't undermine our moral standing in the world, will it?

Nevermind!

Cheney the dangerous--updated

Thanks again to Mary, I read the two part series (think two more to come) from the WaPo on the unique role this VP has played with this compliant and easily manipulated President. Part 1, Part 2.

There is a lot here. I recommend reading both, though will warn you that it will cause a certain distress. Especially in part two when you find out how disconcerned this man was with the torture of others. On the contrary, he pushed for the narrowed definition and the right to inflict cruelty on others. I could handle his ruthlessness if it weren't so damn clear--as Powell and even Rice tried to point out--that there were many unintended consequences of this action. Every individual that Cheney authorized to torture may have given us a modicum of intelligence, but more than likely created 100 terrorists. Seems like a losing game.

More interesting, I think, is the window into how this man operates--and it confirms what many of us previously thought. The rules apply to others, not him. He forces others to share information with him, but refuses to share even the slightest amount. He told James Baker to be an "honest broker" and adhere to the process, yet has bypassed the process in numerous and serious issues and punished anyone who dared dissent with him.

The way he did it -- adhering steadfastly to principle, freezing out dissent and discounting the risks of blow-back -- turned tactical victory into strategic defeat. By late last year, the Supreme Court had dealt three consecutive rebuffs to his claim of nearly unchecked authority for the commander in chief, setting precedents that will bind Bush's successors.

******

Updated. Sully weighs in:

"No vice-president has the right to do this, to change the basic morality of the United States, to undermine its laws, withdraw from its treaty obligations, and do so without even consulting other individuals within the executive branch, let alone the Congress.

And yet Cheney, in a vice-presidential power-grab unparalleled in U.S.
history, didn't only do it; he did it in such a way as to deny his own
accountability and responsibility."

The Anonymous Liberal points to the destructive nature of the VP's campaign:

"Another meta-theme that emerges from the articles is how utterly self-destructive Cheney's legal crusades have been. Time and again you see smart lawyers within the administration (often ones who agree with Cheney substantively) warning him that the courts aren't going to accept certain arguments, and time and again you see Cheney ignoring this advice and insisting that the administration plow ahead. In every case, the courts ended up rejecting Cheney's views, and in the exact way the administration's own lawyers had predicted. As Bruce Fein, who is quoted in the piece, says:

"The irony with the Cheney crowd pushing the envelope on presidential power is that the president has now ended up with lesser powers than he would have had if they had made less extravagant, monarchical claims."

That's unquestionably true. The legal positions that Cheney demanded the administration take were so audacious and unsupportable that they essentially forced the courts to step in and rebuke the administration, thereby creating important legal precedents in areas where none previously existed. Had the administration adopted positions that were aggressive but not insane, the courts would likely have been more deferential.

"I tortured people"

Very interesting story from the WaPO about some of our torture policy:

"'I tortured people,' said Lagouranis, 37, who was a military intelligence specialist in Iraq from January 2004 until January 2005. 'You have to twist your mind up so much to justify doing that.'"

Tony Lagouranis has written a book about his experiences and (hat tip to Ubub) Tom McNamee, from the Chicago Sun Times has read it:

"I've read it, and here's my overall take on what went on:

Brave and decent American soldiers routinely rounded up Iraqis on the slimmest pretext. If a roadside bomb destroyed a Humvee, a hapless farmer in a nearby field might be dragged in for questioning. If some poor sap shared the surname of a suspected insurgent -- a name also perhaps shared by hundreds of Iraqis -- he might be dragged in for questioning.

And once a 'suspect' was detained, he easily could be held for weeks or months, long after Lagouranis or another interrogator had concluded he was guilty of absolutely nothing."

Once he returned home, Lagouranis tried to make sense of what he participated in during this war.

Lagouranis talked to an Army psychiatrist who offered him an escape hatch from his feelings of guilt.

He had done nothing "evil," she said. He had only done his job.

Lagouranis couldn't buy it.

"If you don't include torturing helpless prisoners in your definition of evil," he replied, "your definition of evil is meaningless."

But the Terrorists torture people too

We have had this conversation too many times here to count. But the conversation is still out there. Evidently, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto complained last week that a recent raid in Iraq uncovered torture plans, but didn't spur liberal outrage. He referred to Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan as the most "hysterical" accusers of American torture and found them silent on the issue of Al-Qaeda torture. Evidently, this has become a trend among the right. Brent Bozell has evidently started a campaign about it. Good god.

Greenwald responded and it is worth the read (and sitting through an ad to get to Salon):

It is easy sometimes to lose sight of how extreme a period this is in America's history, how profoundly our national character has been degraded and how fundamentally our country's core has changed over the last six years. If you haven't already read Andrew Sullivan's superb and dispassionate analysis of the Gestapo's "Verschärfte Vernehmung" manual (German for "enhanced interrogation"), I encourage you to do so.

That post has prompted all of the predictable cliches in reply -- he's being hysterical, violating Godwin's Law, comparing Bush to Hitler, etc. etc. -- but Sullivan actually does very little in that post other than matter-of-factly highlight the glaring similarities between the Gestapo guidelines regulating its use of techniques such as hypothermia and waterboarding (for which some Gestapo defendants were convicted and sentenced to death at a 1948 war crimes trial) and our own. As Sullivan documents, virtually every Yoo-ian torture defense offered today is identical to the ones advanced by those German war crime defendants in an unsuccessful attempt to defend their use of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques.

The degradation of our national character is deep and troubling. The Vice President dismisses Constitutional protections as some kind of nicety. Tom Tancredo worships Jack Bauer's torture techniques, and the President, while saying we don't torture, does. The neo-cons even chide liberals like us for having some kind of agenda against America when we ask about torture.

Greenwald nails it, however.

The reason that it is news that the U.S. tortures, but not news that Al Qaeda does, is because Al Qaeda is a barbaric and savage terrorist group which operates with no limits, whereas the U.S. is supposed to be something different than that. Isn't it amazing that one even needs to point that out?
But neoconservatives and other Bush followers do not recognize that distinction and do not believe in it. They see an equivalency between the U.S. and Al Qaeda -- since they do it, we are justified in doing it. And thus, based on that equivalency, they demand that the media treat stories of torture from the U.S. and Al Qaeda exactly the same, as though they are equally newsworthy.

And with that twisted equivalency bolted into place, they have dragged our country on a path where that premise is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Our own interrogation methods are reverse-engineered from the most brutal and barbaric countries and groups on the planet. And the policies and practices we have adopted over the last six years embody everything which this country, for decades, vocally deplored. But all of that happened because of this "belief" -- which is really just a self-justifying rationalization -- that we not only have the right to be, but that we must be, exactly like Al Qaeda, do what they do, in order to defeat them.

The President and VP and the rest of the neocons have turned us into our enemies (historical and present) in order to defeat our enemies.

We keep saying, it isn't about them, it is about who we are. Or it used to be.

Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario (TTBS)

As people know, I am not a John McCain fan. I found his kissing up to Falwell disgusting, his willingness to endorse Bush unsettling, and his romp through Baghdad ridiculous.

But during the GOP debate the other night, he was exactly right about torture. While the other seemed to be in a one-upsmanship battle to show who was more willing to torture (I think Romney won that--evidently Mormons don't sweat torture. But then again, neither do Baptists--er, the SBC leadership) McCain categorically said that we don't torture. As AL noted, that alone is no small point:

" I would point out that discussing torture in an appropriately somber tone--as opposed to pandering to people's worst instincts in order to win applause--is no small difference. Even if tone were the only difference between McCain and his opponents on this issue, it would still be a significant difference. Watching Giuliani, Romney, and the second-tier wannabes trip over each other to endorse extreme interrogation techniques the other night was more than a little unsettling."

McCain also rejected the Fox News scenario mongers. Britt Hume practically salivated as he described the theoretical bombing of American shopping malls and the scum bags that the Americans now held in custody who knew where the next bomb was going off. What do you do? What do you do? McCain knew that this is not a movie where you can jump a speeding bus over a 100 foot chasm. He said, just as straightforward that this scenario was a one in a million scenario (and subtext--shame on Fox for trotting it out). AL agrees:

If you construct the right scenario (nuclear bomb about to go off, suspect knows the target, etc.) just about anyone will answer yes to this question. But that's not at all surprising or informative. After all, it's possible to construct a hypothetical scenario where you'd be morally justified in shooting a little girl in the head (you're in a cave running out of air, there are four other younger children, they'll all die unless you off yourself and the oldest kid, etc.). The bottomline is that all of us are capable of simple utilitarian moral reasoning. If you are presented with a choice between something very bad and something even worse, the moral logic is pretty clear.

As AL notes, just because you can construct a scenario where you do that worse thing, you don't make that worse choice legal--which is what Bush and company want to do.

As I have noted before, I worry about this kind of thinking in many areas of our society. In this case, they judge the morality or efficacy of the TTBS and then refuse to really look at the real use of torture and the real victims of it. Our commenter did the same thing. The people he claimed we were not technically torturing were, in his mind, all guilty terrorists. It is a vastly different moral scenario when you consider that we don't have a clue if we are even "interrogating" the right people. Or have we completely forgotten

"Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was abducted by the Bush administration during a layover at JFK Airport on his way home to Canada, and then brought to Syria to be 'interrogated.' He was kept in a tiny cell for the next 10 months in Syria and was repeatedly tortured. All along, he was guilty of nothing and had no ties of any kind to terrorism."

Yet the same thinking justifies abstinence only programs that don't work, and defends a death penalty that is biased and flawed to a shocking degree.

Torture and our enemies

Since we had a visitor who claimed that we were not torturing our enemies unless we dismembered them or crushed them with rocks, I thought this op ed from two actual military leaders--former Marine Commander and former commander of Central Command--might be worth reading.

The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.

Exactly. Republicans have led with fear and that needs to stop.

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

And that is the other fear that has become all too real under this administration. The "just trust me" approach (never tolerated under Clinton or other Presidents) has proven as ridiculous as it sounds.

But this torture policy isn't just bad on those people who get caught up in neighborhood sweeps or ratted on by neighbors.

To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.

This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."

The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.

This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.

It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.

Time to remember who we are. Good words indeed.

Bush in trouble? GOP for Torture?--a birthday rant

I was going to be nice today, but then I remembered that it is my birthday--not Paige Patterson's or George Bush or the religious right's (when is their birthday, anyway--the realization that Bob Jones University might be forced to integrate?). Anyway, it is my birthday and I will rant if I want. :)

*****

The Republican party scares the crap out of me. Did anyone see the debate last night? According to the clips I saw, Romney scored big applause points by calling for "enhanced interrogation techniques" and wanting to "double Gitmo."

The Republican Party--the Party of Torture?

*****

I might have been harsh on Paige Patterson's pronouncement the other day. I know that Tony has some closer knowledge of the man. My knowledge is from the SBC purge (as I have noted before) and so my take on him is from a pretty cynical place. And it seems that whenever I hear these people speak on the important issues of the day, they are almost always wrong. They have been wrong on feminism, wrong on the environment, the war, torture, science, etc. James Dobson bad mouths Giuliani for many things, including his divorces, but forgives Newt Gingrich?

Unfortunately, these are all the legacy of Jerry Falwell.

****

President Bush was asked today to comment on the James Comey testimony that includes the President himself sending his "hired goons" (Gonzales and Card) to John Ashcroft's sickbed to get him to approve a program that all the seasoned lawyers had already said was illegal. Ashcroft, it should be noted, had signed off on this before, but according to one source I read, did so because his own advisors were barred from reviewing the program. Comey forced the issue and therefore convinced Ashcroft to stop it.

Bush is asked about that visit. He goes into this entire thing about it being a "sensitive and classified" program that he isn't going to talk about but assures us that it is necessary because there is an "enemy that lurks."

The question wasn't about the classified program. The question was about the President sending his goons to override the acting AG. But I think his response is telling. He knows that there is a iceberg looming here. If enough Republicans find this appalling, then we could see impeachment proceedings against Gonzales, and who knows what could follow after that.

It is stunning. The President knew that this was illegal and still approved it. He would have kept doing that except Ashcroft and several others threatened to resign. The PR would have been devastating and Bush changed the program to make it legal.

Pretty amazing, eh? Bush is not impeached for breaking the law (a felony under FISA), but Clinton is for his dalliance with Monica (not a felony).

Scumbags? and other news

Last night, watching Hardball, they asked Richard Land and Tony Perkins on to discuss the "value voter." At least Richard Land admitted that credibility was an issue. He said that if they now absolved the multiple marriers, the press might call them hypocrites after Clinton. Of course, the Clinton's are still married. Tony Perkins said it was great that Newt confessed and admitted that there was something wrong with it. I am not sure what "it" refers to since I don't know anyone who suggests that adultery is ok.

But why am I listening to Tony Perkins? The same man who spoke to a Council of Conservative Citizens (white supremacy group) and bought a mailing list from David Duke--is lecturing me on moral values?

This speaks more to the declining moral credibility of the right. Though, to be frank, I am not sure how much more they could lose after their complete silence on the issue of torture.

Two other points: Republicans, for all their parading on moral values have already given us the first divorced President--which oddly enough, I had forgotten, and that man still is idolized by the religious right. And the second president that they claim is George W., even after torture, Abu Ghraib and failed wars. They still claim him as a great moral values president.

I can't seem to find respect for their moral values.

*******

The US Attorney purge-gate is gathering steam. Talking Points Memo reports that George Bush the Holy personally spoke to Gonzales to pass along concerns about David Iglesias responding to complaints from the New Mexican senator. And there is more:

Perhaps as telling, according to the new Times article, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales's Chief of Staff and the guy who was actually in charge of drawing up the list ... well, he resigned today.

Believe me, his boss won't long outlast him.

And one other tidbit -- Sampson had a partner in assembling the list: then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

As someone noted on another blog, those complaining about "judicial activism" are again strangely silent when they see their Jesus President politicizing the US Attorney's office and our entire judicial system. But then again, I am beginning to doubt the "value voter" even gets our system. I am almost completely convinced they don't understand the Constitution, and now think that they believe all the safeguards, freedoms, protections, etc. listed in the constitution only belong to them.

Sigh.

In our name

Steve asked about violations of civil liberties under Bush. This oped from Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen who had first hand experience with the America created by Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately, given what we know about this policy of "extraordinary rendition" suggests that this story is not anamalous:

"ON NEW YEAR'S EVE in 2003, I was seized at the border of Serbia and Macedonia by Macedonian police who mistakenly believed that I was traveling on a false German passport. I was detained incommunicado for more than three weeks. Then I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan, where I was imprisoned in a foul dungeon for more than four months.

Long after the American government realized that I was an entirely innocent man, I was blindfolded, put back on a plane, flown to Europe and left on a hilltop in Albania — without any explanation or apology for the nightmare that I had endured."

That this man experienced this in my name makes me ill. Our "City upon a Hill" for all its problems, has been transformed into a house of horrors. What do we say to a terrorist group that kidnaps an American citizen and tortures them? Do we express horror? Do we chide them for their immoral behavior? Or do we shrug because we know that if we have the chance, we will do the same thing?

The damage done to our moral image around the world is incalculable and will take generations to bridge.

They did this in our name

We all have blood on our hands. I am horrified by what our country has become. And even more horrified at the number of Americans who read about this and say something like "they are terrorists." The first quoted line from this piece speaks to how low we have become.

The Daily Dish: Confessions of an American Torturer: "The most remarkable line in the entire piece is:

"We almost never had evidence on anybody."

The results on these people were intense:

"We went on them hard for almost a month, I think, and these guys were just completely broken down, physically, mentally, by the end of it. One guy walked like a 90-year-old man when he was done. He was an ex-army guy, he was a real healthy young man when he came in, and by the end he was a mess."

Another interrogator confirms Lagouranis's account and adds:

"I saw barbaric traits begin to seep out of me and other good and respectable people — good Americans who never should have been put in that position to begin with. They have two choices — disobey direct orders or become monsters. It's a lonely road when everyone else is taking the other one."

Last year, the commander-in-chief who is ultimately responsible for every act committed under his command, passed a bill exculpating him and every other civilian employee of the government from any legal consequences for committing war-crimes. Regular soldiers were not given such immunity. The war criminals who gave the orders get off free, while the grunts they ordered may face prosecution at some point (but not if the Pentagon can cover it up)."

So, I called them

I called Focus on the Family this morning. I made absolutely sure I was polite and told both of the women that I spoke with that my comments were not intended to be hostile to them personally, but that I had to voice my frustration that Dobson would embrace someone like Ann Coulter on his show.

The first woman was clearly the receptionist and she was very nice. She asked if I was on their mailing list. I said that I was not and did not want to be. She then passed me off to a woman in their correspondence department. I repeated my statement that it was inconceivable that Dobson could refer to "family values" and embrace someone as hateful as Coulter. She was also quite nice and told me that Dobson had made it clear that he doesn't agree with all of her tactics, but thinks that Coulter has been a "powerful force in the pro-life movement." I asked if that included statements like refering to Muslims as "ragheads." She said, no of course not. I said, that is just like working with a Klan member because they are anti-abortion.

I reiterated numerous times that I was not mad at her and appreciated her letting me speak my mind. But I also communicated the horror that I feel and at one point said something like, "I apologize, but I am shaking this bothers me so much. That a man like Dr. Dobson could embrace someone who makes jokes about torture--torture--is completely incompatible with the message of the Gospel." I went on to tell her that this undermines his credibility on everything.

She was very nice, and I remained nice to her--enough that she thanked me for being polite. She said this comment would be included in a report for Dobson.

Anyway...

Like torture? Vote Republican (Updated) again!

What a thought, eh? But true. That is what Bush has created. My Texas friend told me that he would evaluate the candidates on an individual basis and vote for who was best. In any other year, I would agree completely and simply hope that he would truly hold those Republicans to their word.

But this is not any normal year. It is a referendum on Bush's policies. Voting Republican means that you don't want accountability. Think that is too strident? If you could just show me accountability during the last 6 years I might agree with you. But you can't. My values include a belief in checks and balances--and simply asking our President to follow our Constitution.

Voting for any Republican at this point means that you don't mind torture, are ok with signing statements, think that habeas corpus is a luxury we can't afford, and that you don't mind the Republican congress rubber stamping whatever Bush wants.

The Vice President just admitted that we use water to torture, and as Jonathan Turley noted on Countdown, the only reason to use water during interogations is to waterboard them. Anything else is just getting them wet.

The President also showed himself incapable of telling the truth when he said that he had never been about "stay the course." When he says that we don't torture, who can believe him?

Oh, and we waterboard people and incarcerate them without trial. Time to vote Democratic and return to something approaching accountability.

Update Not only do we torture, but our administration is corrupt and inept. Does anyone find this surprising?

Report: Halliburton unit exploited rules on Yahoo! News: "The Halliburton subsidiary that provides food, shelter and other logistics to U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan exploited federal regulations to hide details on its contract performance, according to a report released Friday.

The special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction found that Halliburton's Kellogg, Brown & Root Services routinely marked all information it gave to the government as proprietary, whether it was or not. The government promises not to disclose proprietary data so a company's most valuable information is not divulged to its competitors.

By marking all information proprietary — including such normally releasable data as labor rates — the company abused federal regulations, the report says."

Oh, and we waterboard people and incarcerate them without trial. Time to vote Democratic and return to something approaching accountability.

Updated again Conservatives show their lack of character. And this time, it does not surprise. Lynne Cheney has always been shrill and indefensible.

Shakespeare's Sister
In the past couple of days, Lynne Cheney has directed this question at Wolf Blitzer and Bill O’Reilly has directed it at David Letterman, two good little soldiers who have in their debate arsenals nothing but rejoinders issued straight from GOP Talking Points Headquarters. Any attempt to point out the question is ludicrous on its face is met with some variation on what O’Reilly lobbed back at Letterman: “It’s an easy question.” To his credit, Letterman didn’t back down, but instead replied, “It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.”

Amen, brother.

I despair that patriotism and pragmatism have become mutually exclusive. Before that “easy” question can be answered by anyone with two brain cells still knocking together, a few other question have to be answered, like What is the definition of winning? and Can we win it? and If so, how are we going to? You know, the kind of questions that certain people resistant to the hypnotic combination of flag-waving and fear-mongering were asking before the war, people who were dismissed as unpatriotic cuckoos. To continue to question whether a person with legitimate questions and concerns wants to win is to obfuscate the frustrating reality that those other questions still have not been answered, three years on.

Oh, and we waterboard people and incarcerate them without trial. Time to vote Democratic and return to something approaching accountability.

Update

Andrew Sullivan | The Daily Dish: The GOP Vs Freedom: "'"'I am a Republican and have traditionally voted that way,' Tony Schuler, an operations services manager at Microsoft with a Harvard M.B.A., said as he sat with his wife, Deanna, in their home above Lake Sammamish. But Mr. Schuler abhors what he sees as a new Republican habit of meddling in private affairs. 'The Schiavo case. Tapping people without a warrant. Whether or not people are gay,' he said. 'Let people be free! It’s not government's job to interfere with those things.'" - from the New York Times today.

American freedom and Bush-Rove Republicanism are increasingly at odds. Don't let them intimidate you. If you're a conservative who actually values the constitutional freedoms these people are stripping away, vote Democrat or abstain. If today's GOP wins, they will take it as vindication for their authoritarian streak. And the path we have already embarked upon will only get darker."

Oh, and we waterboard people and incarcerate them without trial. Time to vote Democratic and return to something approaching accountability.

We detain reporters with no charges

Bush has turned us into our enemies.

Dobson endorses Coulter--can we all agree he is not a godly man?

I don't like James Dobson, that is no mystery. I think most christians see him as this kindly doctor instead of the political king maker who, as we find out--from him--admires Ann Coulter:

"In perhaps reaching a new low, Dobson's guest on his Focus on the Family radio program on Oct. 23-24 was conservative commentator Ann Coulter. In her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter attacks Democrats for being anti-religion and for faking religious faith.

When Dobson asked her about the title of the book and its attack on liberals, Coulter responded, "They are the opposition party to God." However, Coulter does not appear to be a member or regular attender of any church.

Ah who cares. Dobson certainly doesn't. He just hates liberals. Just like Anny the nut. And this is the same woman who mocked women who lost their husbands on 9-11, remember. Just like Jesus would do.

Despite these problems, Dobson not only gave Coulter two days of his show but also lavished her with praise throughout the interview. He encouraged her to come on the show again and expressed his "hope" that she would be a guest on the show many times "through the years."

"It is obvious why you drive the liberals absolutely crazy, and it's fun watching you do it," he told her. "You are a good lady. … And I appreciate what you're trying to do."

Both evidently had great fun mocking John Kerry's faith, military service, etc., because you know, Dobson models Jesus.

Ah, but my favorite is this. If anything, this would have been a perfect opportunity for Dobson to correct the nutjob.

Near the end of the interview, Coulter dismissed concerns about how prisoners are treated at Guantanamo Bay. She argued that the idea that one should "shower [your enemies] with kindness" is merely "a liberal idea that will not die."

Sigh. Evidently it is a "liberal" idea to treat your enemies with love. Jesus said something about that, I believe, but neither the good Czar Dobson or the hatefilled bitch can be bothered to acknowledge that.

Make no mistake about it. If these two are the face of Christianity, I want nothing of it. No moral person does. As a good friend of mine said about someone defending Coulter, "that is all you need to know about that person."

Hey! you can't just detain someone because you want to

I wish this were funny. As the WAPO tells us Bush is lobbying Vietnam to release an American citizen they have detained without charges. "Some Bush administration officials suggest that the Vietnamese government may have evidence against Foshee, but they fault its failure to bring formal charges."

See, wouldn't it be nice for America to be outraged here? Wouldn't it be nice if we could chide VN on violating this person's civil liberties and pound our moral pulpit with authority?

Instead, the President and Vice President appear to tell other countries to act better than they do. Unbelievable.

Friday morning rant

Well, a lot of things bug me.

Item one. NBC and other networks have refused to air ads about the new Dixie Chick documentary. Ironic, since the documentary explores issues of free speech. But the networks are worried that it is disparaging to our president. Sigh. They could kill a movie critical of Reagan; run swiftboating ads that disparaged Kerry, and the lying 9-11 movie attacking Clinton, but dare not criticize Bush?

Item two. Still haven't heard anything from conservatives about this attack on Michael J. Fox. No doubt, btw, that stem cell research is controversial and deserves discussion. This is not a slam dunk issue either way, but I am very afraid that much of the antagonism to this research is not based in any knowledge, but has been stoked by anti-abortion people. That aside, however, Rush Limbaugh's attack on Fox is unseemly and really unbelievable. If compassion is still in any ways associated with conservatism, then Rush should be confronted with this. Disagree with Fox's political stance (though he ran another ad a few years back for a Republican on the same issue) but don't attack his disease. As I noted to a friend the other day, one of the signs that the Republican party is being run by the nuts is the stature afforded to people like Rush and Sean Hannity. When Democrats rush to Michael Moore anytime they want to get the word out, then perhaps the "well, the other side is the same" can be argued.

Item three. Bush did it again with the signing statements. Congress (republican controlled congress) added a requirement for a 5 year experience level to run FEMA. Bush signed it into law, then added a signing statement that said he would ignore that. I really don't care about this particular law that much--Bush will find a way to hire an idiot whatever the requirements--but the fundamental challenge to our system is what bothers me. Do conservatives really think that a Hillary Clinton wouldn't look at those widening powers and think, "hey, why not?" That appears to be one of the major differences between me and my conservative colleagues. I would distrust a liberal president with those despotic powers as well.

Item four. Just a reminder. We torture and our Vice President makes light of waterboarding people, refering to it as "dunking people in water" instead of wrapping their face in celophane and giving them the sensation of drowning. Oh, and we prosecuted Japanese after WW2 for waterboarding and called it torture then. Must be different when we do it. And if that doesn't give you the dry heaves, note that countries like Jordan are now justifying their own torture because we do it. If that doesn't make you sick, then I wonder about our country.

On torture, conservatives still defend it with the ticking time bomb argument. If so and so knows where the bomb is, wouldn't you torture him? That ignores that most of the people run through our little gulag of horrors are not actually in possession of that information. The metaphor I am playing with is that we certainly make room for a police officer to use deadly force, but he is responsible for ensuring that it was a justified shoot. Under the Bush model, he would be able to shoot anyone who looked dangerous, there would be no oversight challenge, and there would be no way to actually charge the officer, or for the family of the victim to sue him in court.

If you are continually wrong, we will stop listening to you

Crooks and Liars : Bill Maher Smacks Around Some NeoCons: "Maher: And finally, new rule in two parts: (A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid; and (B) If you're someone from one of these think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, that the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war, you have to stop making predictions."

This is the warning to evangelicals who keep telling me that Bush is some kind of "Godly man." At a point, you lose credibility on any kind of moral issue.

Let's recap

Don't read Glenn Greenwald's take on Dick Cheney unless you have a strong stomach. Realizing that our VP jokes with idiot Republicans about waterboarding people when we prosecuted Japanese in WW2 for the very same tactic is disheartening.

Oh, and don't forget that other countries are now modeling their torture treatment on US and giving themselves permission to do more, not less.

Watching Bill Maher last night and was reminded that conservatives (those who defend torture) ALL treat the issue as if all of these people have a ticking time bomb under New York City. That is the only way they can approach this moral issue. But they refuse to address the actual moral environment they have created--one where a President can snap up an American citizen as enemy combatant and also determine how to define torture. One where those detainees can be waterboarded, forced to suffer fake burials and hypothermia, whether they are innocent or guilty. And how will we know?

It is a sickening, disheartening thing. We have become the Soviet Union and conservatives are clapping. Back to Greenwald and our Veep:

Hennen [talk show host and "interviewer"] and Cheney also shared their affection for waterboarding. Hennen told Cheney: "I've had people call and say, please, let the Vice President know that if it takes dunking a terrorist in water, we're all for it, if it saves American lives" and Hennen asked: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?" In reply to the latter question, Cheney replied: "It's a no-brainer for me" -- a statement understood, reasonably, to be the first open acknowledgement by a senior Bush official that we use waterboarding -- and Cheney agreed with Hennen that the torture debate "seems a little silly given the threat we face."

These are our leaders. This is what they have done to us.

US now a model for torture?

Can't say we didn't tell you so on this one. Just let that sink in, though. We are now a model--a leader in encouraging other countries to torture detainees. And why wouldn't they? If we torture, who is there left to criticize it as a super power? China won't. It is enough to make you cry.
Reuters AlertNet - Governments say they follow U.S. on jail treatment:

"UNITED NATIONS, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Some countries try to refute criticism over their treatment of prisoners by saying they are only following the U.S. example on handling terror suspects, a U.N. human rights expert said on Monday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. investigator on torture, told a news conference that "all too frequently" governments respond to criticism about their jails by saying they handled detainees the same way the United States did.

"The United States has been the pioneer of human rights and is a country that has a high reputation in the world," Nowak said. "Today, other governments are kind of saying, 'But why are you criticizing us, we are not doing something different than what the United States is doing.'"

He said nations like Jordan tell him, "We are collaborating with the United States so it can't be wrong if it is also done by the United States.""

Glenn Greenwald has more on American values under our Godly President and how we have become more like our enemies:

"In other words, by studying the torture methods used by America's enemies -- those uncivilized, evil regimes and groups we are always hearing about -- we learned how to torture people and then decided to copy their torture techniques. As always, the "rationale" of the Bush administration is that in order to defend our values and culture from the evil forces seeking to destroy us, we have to become as much like them as possible and copy their behavior.

It seems virtually certain that the entire top level of the Bush administration was fully aware of the techniques being used at Guantanamo. They took frequent trips to Gunatanamo and met with Gen. Miller. One particular trip that MSNBC learned about took place in October, 2002, when various key Bush administration lawyers -- including Alberto Gonzales, David Addington and John Yoo -- visited Guantanamo. That was the same group which, just a couple of months before that trip, had created the now infamous "torture memo" authored by Yoo in August, 2002, which sought to both re-define and justify the administration's use of torture.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to the defense that in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, military and intelligence officials would be tempted to use unusually aggressive, even extreme, interrogation methods on the person who was likely intended to be the 20th hijacker. That isn't a defense of those methods, but it makes its use more understandable.

But that isn't what happened here. These extreme and vile techniques became standard operating procedure for how we interrogate detainees. Far worse, five years after September 11, the U.S. Congress -- right out in the open -- voted expressly to authorize the use of most if not all of these techniques and empower the President to use them at will. Put another way, our country, after five years of distance from 9/11 and after much debate and deliberation, decided to enshrine this behavior as legally authorized and reflective of our new national values."

Sigh.