Goodbye letter to the President.

[ksinger]

Date: 12/10/2008 7:57:36 AM
Author: Ellen
First of all, correction. Shinseki was not fired, he retired in 2003, right after the invasion. Everything else is correct on him, except that part which I learned after posting. His opinion didn''t sit well with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and his influence waned after that. So he retired 3 months after the invasion.



As for this piece, yes, it''s an opinion. Hello! I posted it for those I knew would appreciate it. I didn''t expect everyone to get it, nor like it. However, I did try later to post some articles/facts (as did Karen) that might get some people at least thinking there might be some validity to it. And maybe some out there are, though they''d most likely never admit it, because then they too would fall under the criticism of the opposed. And that''s kinda sad....


Glad some of you appreciated it!

A friend of mine briefed him in Iraq before the invasion. Told me about the briefing and Shinseki. VERY interesting stuff....

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/10/2008 9:07:34 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/10/2008 8:56:14 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 12/9/2008 10:21:47 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/9/2008 9:53:54 PM

Author: trillionaire

Ksinger, you are lucky gay marriage is illegal, because you are so awesome, I''d probably propose!

Hahaha! You''d have to fight me for her, though!

Pardon me ladies, but I do believe I was at the head of the line!

Well you know once they legalize same sex marriage, polygamy will be next on the list, so I suggest that we all get married.

Karen, I wish I could hear all about it!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 12/10/2008 9:05:40 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 12/10/2008 8:56:14 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 12/9/2008 10:21:47 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/9/2008 9:53:54 PM

Author: trillionaire

Ksinger, you are lucky gay marriage is illegal, because you are so awesome, I''d probably propose!

Hahaha! You''d have to fight me for her, though!

Pardon me ladies, but I do believe I was at the head of the line!

After a few blinks, the evil look started coming into his eyes and he just said, ''Why don''t you tell them we ALL need to get together and talk about it....''

Men....

Haha, he''s bad!!!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 12/10/2008 9:07:34 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/10/2008 8:56:14 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 12/9/2008 10:21:47 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/9/2008 9:53:54 PM

Author: trillionaire

Ksinger, you are lucky gay marriage is illegal, because you are so awesome, I''d probably propose!

Hahaha! You''d have to fight me for her, though!

Pardon me ladies, but I do believe I was at the head of the line!

Well you know once they legalize same sex marriage, polygamy will be next on the list, so I suggest that we all get married.

Muauahaha...nice!

 

[miraclesrule]

I guess I''m a tadbit tri-sexual tonight, because I want to marry Ellen and Karen!!

 

[miraclesrule]

And may I quote from a book I am reading (the title of which will probably land me on the no-fly list when I post it):

"The first casualty when war comes is the truth"
-Senator Hiram Johnson (1917)

"...How the above is all relevant is that if any reader finds it intellectually incongruous, and therefore difficult to accept, that a president of the United States could actually do what I strongly believe George W. Bush did in leading this nation to war, because, well, one would simply never expect (i.e., seeing what you expect to see) a president of the United States to do such a thing, I say you will be falling into the same unthinking trap that so many humans do. You have to disabuse yourself of any preconceived notion you may have that just because George Bush is the president of the United States he is simply incapable of engaging in conduct that smacks of great criminality. Because if you take that position, a position that has no foundation in logic, you're not going to be receptive to the evidence I set forth in this book, nor to the commonsense inferences I draw from that evidence.

For those who want America to one day be the great nation it once was, it can hardly do this if it doesn't take the first step of bringing those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice."

And then the author proceeds to take you through 330+ pages of factual evidence that is publicly available. But it's disgusting so you need an iron stomach. That is why I have only made it to page 125. It's painful and it should be. War isn't a day at the spa. But I can see why we would want to just let Bush get off easy with a harsh goodbye letter instead. The truth is too disgustingly painful to acknowledge. Almost too sickening to revisit...

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 12/10/2008 10:50:43 PM
Author: miraclesrule
And may I quote from a book I am reading (the title of which will probably land me on the no-fly list when I post it):

''The first casualty when war comes is the truth''
-Senator Hiram Johnson (1917)

''...How the above is all relevant is that if any reader finds it intellectually incongruous, and therefore difficult to accept, that a president of the United States could actually do what I strongly believe George W. Bush did in leading this nation to war, because, well, one would simply never expect (i.e., seeing what you expect to see) a president of the United States to do such a thing, I say you will be falling into the same unthinking trap that so many humans do. You have to disabuse yourself of any preconceived notion you may have that just because George Bush is the president of the United States he is simply incapable of engaging in conduct that smacks of great criminality. Because if you take that position, a position that has no foundation in logic, you''re not going to be receptive to the evidence I set forth in this book, nor to the commonsense inferences I draw from that evidence.

For those who want America to one day be the great nation it once was, it can hardly do this if it doesn''t take the first step of bringing those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.''

And then the author proceeds to take you through 330+ pages of factual evidence that is publicly available. But it''s disgusting so you need an iron stomach. That is why I have only made it to page 125. It''s painful and it should be. War isn''t a day at the spa. But I can see why we would want to just let Bush get off easy with a harsh goodbye letter instead. The truth is too disgustingly painful to acknowledge. Almost too sickening to revisit...

I say throw the book at him (GWB). He can spend his waning years with OJ, my fellow USC alum!

And I am laughing at the polygamist and alternative marriage proposals that I have encouraged! *hehe* Leave it to liberals to destroy everything holy...

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 12/10/2008 11:06:14 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 12/10/2008 10:50:43 PM

Author: miraclesrule

And may I quote from a book I am reading (the title of which will probably land me on the no-fly list when I post it):

''The first casualty when war comes is the truth''

-Senator Hiram Johnson (1917)

''...How the above is all relevant is that if any reader finds it intellectually incongruous, and therefore difficult to accept, that a president of the United States could actually do what I strongly believe George W. Bush did in leading this nation to war, because, well, one would simply never expect (i.e., seeing what you expect to see) a president of the United States to do such a thing, I say you will be falling into the same unthinking trap that so many humans do. You have to disabuse yourself of any preconceived notion you may have that just because George Bush is the president of the United States he is simply incapable of engaging in conduct that smacks of great criminality. Because if you take that position, a position that has no foundation in logic, you''re not going to be receptive to the evidence I set forth in this book, nor to the commonsense inferences I draw from that evidence.

For those who want America to one day be the great nation it once was, it can hardly do this if it doesn''t take the first step of bringing those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.''

And then the author proceeds to take you through 330+ pages of factual evidence that is publicly available. But it''s disgusting so you need an iron stomach. That is why I have only made it to page 125. It''s painful and it should be. War isn''t a day at the spa. But I can see why we would want to just let Bush get off easy with a harsh goodbye letter instead. The truth is too disgustingly painful to acknowledge. Almost too sickening to revisit...

I say throw the book at him (GWB). He can spend his waning years with OJ, my fellow USC alum!

And I am laughing at the polygamist and alternative marriage proposals that I have encouraged! *hehe* Leave it to liberals to destroy everything holy...

You know how we liberals roll! I''ve been wrecking sacred institutions since 1999.

 

[katebar]

Zimbardo

Date: 12/10/2008 7:26:05 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 12/9/2008 11:12:42 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 12/9/2008 10:36:02 PM
Author: ksinger
LMAO! Trill and Thing, you are just crackin'' me up!

Thanks!

I am just a big nerd you know: I read too much. Research too much. Go down odd roads. And pretty much all just for the fun of it. For instance, several years ago, I wondered about why we torture people and ended up with new reference books and being pretty knowledgeable about Stanley Milgram and Phillip Zimbardo. That''s some fascinating stuff too...

Well, I''ll tell my hubby what you guys said. I''m sure he''ll be jealous....If he isn''t I''m gonna smack him!!

And l love the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments! But especially the Milgram experiments...WOW. I learned all about them and saw videos of them in a couple of the classes I took this semester...just got an A in my Social Influence, Compliance and Obedience class, as a matter of fact! Are you familiar with the Asch line experiments? Kind of crazy also, but not as many disturbing implications.

No, I''m not. Enlighten me.

Zimbardo - Kinda puts the big lie to the idea that the Army had NO IDEA that this could happen...

A few bad apples.... Give me a break. When every first year psych student and any interested layperson can read what happened, you tell me that the Army psychologists and brass shouldn''t have known this?

Did you ever read Zimbardo''s later account of how the experiments got stopped? Interesting. His WIFE stopped them. She came in several days in, saw the insanity and basically grabbed him by the proverbial throat and shoved his face into that ''cruel mirror''. He fought it at first, then woke from the trance. Shook him to his toenails as I recall....

Ksinger Philip Zimbardo was interviewed on a program here in Australia last month. Here is the link very interesting and thought provoking
Zimbardo

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/10/2008 10:50:43 PM
Author: miraclesrule
And may I quote from a book I am reading (the title of which will probably land me on the no-fly list when I post it):

''The first casualty when war comes is the truth''
-Senator Hiram Johnson (1917)

''...How the above is all relevant is that if any reader finds it intellectually incongruous, and therefore difficult to accept, that a president of the United States could actually do what I strongly believe George W. Bush did in leading this nation to war, because, well, one would simply never expect (i.e., seeing what you expect to see) a president of the United States to do such a thing, I say you will be falling into the same unthinking trap that so many humans do. You have to disabuse yourself of any preconceived notion you may have that just because George Bush is the president of the United States he is simply incapable of engaging in conduct that smacks of great criminality. Because if you take that position, a position that has no foundation in logic, you''re not going to be receptive to the evidence I set forth in this book, nor to the commonsense inferences I draw from that evidence.

For those who want America to one day be the great nation it once was, it can hardly do this if it doesn''t take the first step of bringing those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.''

And then the author proceeds to take you through 330+ pages of factual evidence that is publicly available. But it''s disgusting so you need an iron stomach. That is why I have only made it to page 125. It''s painful and it should be. War isn''t a day at the spa. But I can see why we would want to just let Bush get off easy with a harsh goodbye letter instead. The truth is too disgustingly painful to acknowledge. Almost too sickening to revisit...

Indeed.

There are times when I wish I was the person I used to be, instead of the person that I am now. Back to the days I so naively thought that any person in power would never abuse such power, and that they always had our best interest at heart. That old saying is profoundly true, Ignorance is bliss.



And as for marrying me, while I''m terribly flattered, I''ll have to pass. I haven''t changed THAT much.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 12/11/2008 6:50:57 AM
Author: Ellen
Indeed.

There are times when I wish I was the person I used to be, instead of the person that I am now. Back to the days I so naively thought that any person in power would never abuse such power, and that they always had our best interest at heart. That old saying is profoundly true, Ignorance is bliss.



And as for marrying me, while I''m terribly flattered, I''ll have to pass. I haven''t changed THAT much.

It was, isn''t it? Sigh...

And I too, must pass on the massive group marriage thing that seems to be shaping up here. I don''t like that gleefully evil little twitchy look in my man''s eyes. Uh huh. tap tap tap tap tap..... Of course if I tell him to get the ...."goods"... so to speak, he''s going to have to marry ALL of us, he''ll undoubtedly run SCREAMING, like any sane man would. I''m sure one permanent woman is quite enough for him!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/11/2008 7:57:47 AM
Author: ksinger

Date: 12/11/2008 6:50:57 AM
Author: Ellen
Indeed.

There are times when I wish I was the person I used to be, instead of the person that I am now. Back to the days I so naively thought that any person in power would never abuse such power, and that they always had our best interest at heart. That old saying is profoundly true, Ignorance is bliss.



And as for marrying me, while I''m terribly flattered, I''ll have to pass. I haven''t changed THAT much.

It was, isn''t it? Sigh...

And I too, must pass on the massive group marriage thing that seems to be shaping up here. I don''t like that gleefully evil little twitchy look in my man''s eyes. Uh huh. tap tap tap tap tap..... Of course if I tell him to get the ....''goods''... so to speak, he''s going to have to marry ALL of us, he''ll undoubtedly run SCREAMING, like any sane man would. I''m sure one permanent woman is quite enough for him!

An often asked question from my hubby is, Why would ANY man want more than one? Although this has always been in reference to if something happened to me and he found himself starting over.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 12/9/2008 8:25:30 PM
Author: beebrisk

Date: 12/9/2008 8:06:49 PM
Author: thing2of2
Still waiting for a Republican response with a few facts...but I''m not holding my breath-because I''d die! (I''m betting that a few of you may be upset about that decision!

)


It''s so interesting to me that Obama supporters are supposedly the sheep, yet Bush supporters can''t say a bad word about him or his entire presidency...and Bush has screwed up so much stuff it''s not even funny anymore.

Interesting, because the writer of that letter didn''t mention a single ''fact''. Unless of course he''s correct in his assertion that GWB was driven to war by his ''desperate sexual insecurity''.

Actually, I think I might die waiting to see him furnish the ''facts'' to back up that claim!

It seems that the sex bit is all that you got from the article - do you know something we don''t .....

 

[Ellen]

I read the article I''m going to link, earlier today, great read. And later I thought about this thread, and how a lot of the article so cleary illustrates why the goodbye author, and others, feel the way they do about this president and company. It''s a bit lengthy, but if anyone really wants to understand the anger towards this man, please read it. It''s in the words of the men who were there, the men worked with him, the men who truly know.

And before anyone says they were just out to get him, think about that. One person I could see, maybe two, even three. But there are just too many voices for it to be about sour grapes. This is just the truth, ugly as it is. And I can only imagine what all they couldn''t say....

I am making a point of posting it, because I want to back up why I said the things I did. I don''t just randomly say things, and I like to help people understand where I''m coming from, if anyone cares. This just put a lot of it in one easy link.


An Oral History of the Bush White House

 

[ksinger]

Date: 12/30/2008 8:42:41 PM
Author: Ellen
I read the article I''m going to link, earlier today, great read. And later I thought about this thread, and how a lot of the article so cleary illustrates why the goodbye author, and others, feel the way they do about this president and company. It''s a bit lengthy, but if anyone really wants to understand the anger towards this man, please read it. It''s in the words of the men who were there, the men worked with him, the men who truly know.

And before anyone says they were just out to get him, think about that. One person I could see, maybe two, even three. But there are just too many voices for it to be about sour grapes. This is just the truth, ugly as it is. And I can only imagine what all they couldn''t say....

I am making a point of posting it, because I want to back up why I said the things I did. I don''t just randomly say things, and I like to help people understand where I''m coming from, if anyone cares. This just put a lot of it in one easy link.


An Oral History of the Bush White House

I''m reading it now, although I probably won''t finish tonight. So far I find most interesting the comments of Richard Clark. The DH read a book by him (wouldn''t you know we can''t find it...it''s either...(wait for it)....PACKED away in the ATTIC, (just try moving in a man with 10,000 books, I dare ya), or it''s at his dad''s with the other 10,000), that he recalls refuted that pernicious idea that Clinton didn''t have the balls to go after bin Laden. Apparently, the order went out to go after him, but the military brass, which pretty much loathed Clinton, dawdled around and pretty much refused to do it. He said he read one part where Clark overheard some soldiers bad-mouthing Clinton for being a wuss, and he said to them, "No, he DID order a strike." Understand of course this account of what Clark wrote is several years removed, and 3rd hand through me. Dang, but I''d like to find that book and read it for myself! Grrrr!!

Anyway, I liked this quote by Clark: "Richard Clarke: That night, on 9/11, Rumsfeld came over and the others, and the president finally got back, and we had a meeting. And Rumsfeld said, You know, we’ve got to do Iraq, and everyone looked at him—at least I looked at him and Powell looked at him—like, What the hell are you talking about? And he said—I’ll never forget this—There just aren’t enough targets in Afghanistan. We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kind of attacks. And I made the point certainly that night, and I think Powell acknowledged it, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That didn’t seem to faze Rumsfeld in the least. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise. It really didn’t, because from the first weeks of the administration they were talking about Iraq. I just found it a little disgusting that they were talking about it while the bodies were still burning in the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center."

Off to read some more....

 

[Ellen]

Date: 12/30/2008 9:37:24 PM
Author: ksinger


I''m reading it now, although I probably won''t finish tonight. So far I find most interesting the comments of Richard Clark. The DH read a book by him (wouldn''t you know we can''t find it...it''s either...(wait for it)....PACKED away in the ATTIC, (just try moving in a man with 10,000 books, I dare ya), or it''s at his dad''s with the other 10,000), that he recalls refuted that pernicious idea that Clinton didn''t have the balls to go after bin Laden. Apparently, the order went out to go after him, but the military brass, which pretty much loathed Clinton, dawdled around and pretty much refused to do it. He said he read one part where Clark overheard some soldiers bad-mouthing Clinton for being a wuss, and he said to them, ''No, he DID order a strike.'' Understand of course this account of what Clark wrote is several years removed, and 3rd hand through me. Dang, but I''d like to find that book and read it for myself! Grrrr!!

Anyway, I liked this quote by Clark: ''Richard Clarke: That night, on 9/11, Rumsfeld came over and the others, and the president finally got back, and we had a meeting. And Rumsfeld said, You know, we’ve got to do Iraq, and everyone looked at him—at least I looked at him and Powell looked at him—like, What the hell are you talking about? And he said—I’ll never forget this—There just aren’t enough targets in Afghanistan. We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kind of attacks. And I made the point certainly that night, and I think Powell acknowledged it, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That didn’t seem to faze Rumsfeld in the least. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise. It really didn’t, because from the first weeks of the administration they were talking about Iraq. I just found it a little disgusting that they were talking about it while the bodies were still burning in the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center.''

Off to read some more....

Yep, it''s a great quote. A very telling quote. Nothing disingenuous there.



I found this one particularly interesting, though really the whole article is. And again, it''s Rumsfeld, just basically ignoring the facts, issues, etc. Lying in the face of truth.


March 19, 2003 The Iraq war begins. Two weeks of “shock and awe” bombardment herald the invasion by ground forces. U.S. and British troops make up 90 percent of the “international coalition,” which includes modest support from other countries. The defeat of Iraqi forces is a foregone conclusion, but within days of the occupation Baghdad is beset by looting that coalition forces do nothing to stop
Rumsfeld dismisses the breakdown of civil order with the explanation “Stuff happens.” Kenneth Adelman, a Rumsfeld-appointed member of a Pentagon advisory board, and initially a supporter of the war, later confronts the defense secretary.

Kenneth Adelman, a member of Donald Rumsfeld’s advisory Defense Policy Board: So he says, It might be best if you got off the Defense Policy Board. You’re very negative. I said, I am negative, Don. You’re absolutely right. I’m not negative about our friendship. But I think your decisions have been abysmal when it really counted.

Start out with, you know, when you stood up there and said things—“Stuff happens.” I said, That’s your entry in Bartlett’s. The only thing people will remember about you is “Stuff happens.” I mean, how could you say that? “This is what free people do.” This is not what free people do. This is what barbarians do. And I said, Do you realize what the looting did to us? It legitimized the idea that liberation comes with chaos rather than with freedom and a better life. And it demystified the potency of American forces. Plus, destroying, what, 30 percent of the infrastructure.

I said, You have 140,000 troops there, and they didn’t do jack shit. I said, There was no order to stop the looting. And he says, There was an order. I said, Well, did you give the order? He says, I didn’t give the order, but someone around here gave the order. I said, Who gave the order?

So he takes out his yellow pad of paper and he writes down—he says, I’m going to tell you. I’ll get back to you and tell you. And I said, I’d like to know who gave the order, and write down the second question on your yellow pad there.Tell me why 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq disobeyed the order. Write that down, too.

Great question.... And I love it, telling Adelman maybe he should get off the DPB, because he''s very negative. Unreal.

Interesting about Clinton and bin Laden. I watched a documentary years ago, and in it they said he wanted to go after him, but his advisors warned him against it, because it was right after the Monica story broke, and they said it would look like he was trying to take attention away from that. But your hubs recollection of Clark would possibly dispute that, which would be good. Because after I watched that, I always hoped that wasn''t true, yanno? That he wouldn''t pass up the opportunty. But then, it seems Dubya passed some up too...

 

[ksinger]

Hi Ellen. Still slowly reading the VF piece. I can only take it in small doses: it gets me too disgusted. Here is my latest a-ha! excerpt.


July 23, 2002 Senior British defense, diplomatic, and intelligence officials meet in London to discuss the American position on war with Iraq. An account of the meeting, known as the Downing Street Memo, is drawn up by one of the participants, but remains secret for several years. In the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, gives an assessment of his recent talks in Washington: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

Bob Graham, Democratic senator from Florida and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: I asked George [Tenet, the C.I.A. director], What did the national intelligence estimate [N.I.E.] that we had done on Iraq tell us about what would be the conditions during the period of combat, what would be the conditions post-combat, and what was the basis of our information on the weapons of mass destruction? Tenet said, We’ve never done an N.I.E.

Paul Pillar, national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia at the C.I.A.: The makers of the war had no appetite for and did not request any such assessments [about the aftermath of war]. Anybody who wanted an intelligence-community assessment on any of this stuff would’ve come through me, and I got no requests at all.

As to why this was the case, I would give two general answers. Number one was just extreme hubris and self-confidence. If you truly believe in the power of free economics and free politics, and their attractiveness to all populations of the world, and their ability to sweep away all manner of ills, then you tend not to worry about these things so much.

The other major reason is that, given the difficulty of mustering public support for something as extreme as an offensive war, any serious discussion inside the government about the messy consequences, the things that could go wrong, would complicate even further the job of selling the war.

end excerpt
Wow. Just wow. They didn''t just "fix the facts around the policy" as many of us suspected, but the denial of reality was SO strong, that they even lied to themselves, thus absolving themselves, (in their minds) of paying attention to the intel they DID have, or gathering any more.

Oh, and that army friend of mine, the one who briefed Shinseki? he also was at one point a genuine NSA "spy" if you will. Combine his experiences in Iraq leading up to the invasion (he was there) with his NSA background and insider knowledge of how the intelligence community works, and he''s still in major shock that this could happen - that so many organizations at so many levels bought into what at the time, and now in retrospect, was complete intel fabrication. He still can''t understand why no one said anything. I just snort and say "Hell, look what happened to those who DID dare to say something the administration didn''t want to hear! Shinseki, Joseph Wilson!" I think it was simply a massive case of groupthink and the intense pressure at every level to not connect the dots, and to not comment of the emperor''s lack of sartorial splendor....

Off to continue reading....

 

[Ellen]

K, I know. Truly, truly, mind-boggling. And scary, to think of all he got away with, and that it could happen again.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/4/2009 6:55:16 PM
Author: Ellen
K, I know. Truly, truly, mind-boggling. And scary, to think of all he got away with, and that it could happen again.

It really is. The scariest part to me is that so many Americans refuse to even entertain the possibility that Bush, Cheney, etc. lied. That''s exactly why something like this could easily happen again.

 

[MoonWater]

Did you guys see the piece on torture? http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=1

 

[ksinger]

OK...note to self: read the torture one. Sadly, I don''t have time right at the moment. But back when the torture flap broke into public view, I did read a piece that was interviews with guys who were retired from the CIA, guys who did most of their interrogations during the cold war. THEY were appalled at what came out. They said that the most effective thing back then was breaking them down with talk, believe it or not. They insisted that the reality was that torture didn''t work. They attributed the recent use of torture, at the time, to the loss - due to retirements partly - of the expertise in interrogation techniques gained in that time. They noted that most of the guys in the agency were young and had not really been trained to do interrogations, and also didn''t have older, experienced agents present to guide them on how to keep things from getting out of hand, or the best methods.

I personally think that, training or lack of it aside, when people are angry and scared, they frequently WANT to hurt someone. To paint another human as less than human and thus imperviable to normal human inducements, allows one to treat them as badly as one''s darkest dreams may desire. And I think that we are ultimately lazy - we don''t want to DO the tough work, the slow breaking down of the other person. First because we as a people are not used to waiting for anything and are used to instant gratification, and two, because if I talk to another person long enough, I may begin to understand when I don''t WANT to understand. I just want to HIT someone.

And how about this as a hypothetical: your husband comes home after several years performing "interrogations". Is he the same man you married? Still able to draw the line and not cross it? Undamaged psychically by what he''s been required to do? That situation would just scare the bejeesus out of me. Married to a professional torturer?

Bottom line, torture has never really worked as a means of gaining good information. It didn''t get good confessions for the 100''s of years of The Inquisition, or in Salem. Why people doggedly insist that it would be so different now, never ceases to amaze me.

 

[ksinger]

I confess to nerdiness in the extreme when I say I have folders and folders of "stuff" that I''ve saved off over the last 8 years. Articles I found interesting. Back when I had much more time than I do now, I''d even put them into categories. I have....(wait for it.....) a category called "Torture". It''s fairly replete, safe to say. Anyway, I have the entire text of the following piece saved off in a text document, but it is SO incredibly long, and it''s still available for viewing (pretty nifty), that I thought I''d link it and let you guys go out and read it there, rather than make a single post that is so long it spans pages.

It is an extremely nuanced piece on torture. Very disturbing.

Interrogating Ourselves

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/4/2009 9:58:51 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 1/4/2009 6:55:16 PM
Author: Ellen
K, I know. Truly, truly, mind-boggling. And scary, to think of all he got away with, and that it could happen again.

It really is. The scariest part to me is that so many Americans refuse to even entertain the possibility that Bush, Cheney, etc. lied. That''s exactly why something like this could easily happen again.

And they call "us" sheep.

Also, ya know the saying, Denial isn''t just a river....But as this monster is getting ready to leave office, birds are starting to "sing". And I think as time goes on, the chirping is going to get much harder to ignore.


moon, I had not seen that, good article. I''ve got some great response links, but they''ll have to wait til I get back from running errands.


K, thanks for the link.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/5/2009 7:05:50 AM
Author: ksinger
OK...note to self: read the torture one. Sadly, I don''t have time right at the moment. But back when the torture flap broke into public view, I did read a piece that was interviews with guys who were retired from the CIA, guys who did most of their interrogations during the cold war. THEY were appalled at what came out. They said that the most effective thing back then was breaking them down with talk, believe it or not. They insisted that the reality was that torture didn''t work. They attributed the recent use of torture, at the time, to the loss - due to retirements partly - of the expertise in interrogation techniques gained in that time. They noted that most of the guys in the agency were young and had not really been trained to do interrogations, and also didn''t have older, experienced agents present to guide them on how to keep things from getting out of hand, or the best methods.

I personally think that, training or lack of it aside, when people are angry and scared, they frequently WANT to hurt someone. To paint another human as less than human and thus imperviable to normal human inducements, allows one to treat them as badly as one''s darkest dreams may desire. And I think that we are ultimately lazy - we don''t want to DO the tough work, the slow breaking down of the other person. First because we as a people are not used to waiting for anything and are used to instant gratification, and two, because if I talk to another person long enough, I may begin to understand when I don''t WANT to understand. I just want to HIT someone.

And how about this as a hypothetical: your husband comes home after several years performing ''interrogations''. Is he the same man you married? Still able to draw the line and not cross it? Undamaged psychically by what he''s been required to do? That situation would just scare the bejeesus out of me. Married to a professional torturer?

Bottom line, torture has never really worked as a means of gaining good information. It didn''t get good confessions for the 100''s of years of The Inquisition, or in Salem. Why people doggedly insist that it would be so different now, never ceases to amaze me.

Apparently, they know it doesn''t work, even now, according to this former interrogator.


I heard this guy, another former interrogator on Keith Oberlman awhile back. And he''s written a book under a pen name, in case anyone is interested.



This is an extremely revealing piece by a former Abu Ghraid General.

The General went on to speak about the direct links to leading members of the Bush Administration:

"We can trace back now, through documents that were released through court order, back to the original document, the one that Alberto Gonzales reviewed and discussed with the President of the United States, a departure from the Geneva Convention. These are not prisoners, these are terrorists and these techniques will be more effective." She said.

"And then Secretary Rumsfeld putting his signature on a document authorizing more aggressive and harsher techniques during interrogation. That document goes over to Guantanamo Bay and over to Afghanistan, and it''s used first in smaller groups and then it''s used at Guantanamo Bay as a standard practice."

The General also agreed that private contractors were brought in to over see the interrogations. The orders to use torture techniques can be traced back to the criminals in Government.

End of quote.



It is sickening, what was ordered and carried out. And so much of it on totally innocent people. And NOT just at Abu Ghraid. It leaves me speechless.

And all this ignored by congress, who passed a bill that basically gives anyone responsible a "get out of jail free" card. WTH??


Evil doers? That''s all the people who condoned this type of behavior, let it go on, covered it up, and excused it in the end. They should all be tried, but I''m not going to hold my breath.

 

[Ellen]

I forgot to put, even though they have supposedly pardoned themselves in that bill, I''ve read it can possibly be repealed

 

[ksinger]

I'm really slow in reading this! But do you know, if you copy and paste that piece, still formatted, into a word document - pictures and all - that it makes a 51 page document?? I'm on page 35-ish, I think.

Excerpt for the day:

Bill Graham, Canada’s foreign minister and later defense minister: We were there in Washington for a G-8 meeting, and Colin suddenly phoned us all up and said, We’re going to the White House this morning. Now, this is curious, because normally the heads of government don’t give a damn about foreign ministers. We all popped in a bus and went over and were cordially received by Colin and President Bush. The president sat down to explain that, you know, this terrible news had come out about Abu Ghraib and how disgusting it was. The thrust of his presentation was that this was a terrible aberration; it was un-American conduct. This was not American.

Joschka Fischer was one of the people that said, Mr. President, if the atmosphere at the top is such that it encourages or allows people to believe that they can behave this way, this is going to be a consequence. The president’s reaction was: This is un-American. Americans don’t do this. People will realize Americans don’t do this. (Other than the fact that he sounds like a broken record, and that he thinks that merely by repeating it enough times, it will become TRUE, that reasoning only works when Americans DON'T ACTUALLY DO THIS!!)

The problem for the United States, and indeed for the free world, is that because of this—Guantánamo, and the “torture memos” from the White House, which we were unaware of at that time—people around the world don’t believe that anymore. They say, No, Americans are capable of doing such things and have done them, all the while hypocritically criticizing the human-rights records of others.

Alberto Mora, navy general counsel: I will tell you this: I will tell you that General Anthony Taguba, who investigated Abu Ghraib, feels now that the proximate cause of Abu Ghraib were the O.L.C. memoranda that authorized abusive treatment. And I will also tell you that there are general-rank officers who’ve had senior responsibility within the Joint Staff or counterterrorism operations who believe that the number-one and number-two leading causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have been, number one, Abu Ghraib, number two, Guantánamo, because of the effectiveness of these symbols in helping recruit jihadists into the field and combat against American soldiers.

Either that, or all this is a big fat DUH for people who don't have their RayBan "De Nile Ultra-Ultra Polarized" shades on...

What I see with all this, is a big proof of Milgram's assertion that people may feel internal discomfort with what they are asked to do or be a party to - they may know it's wrong - but they can't usually translate that into action. Obedience to authority demostrated, eh?

 

[ksinger]

Whooo hooo! I finally finished the WHOLE thing!!! Do I get a cookie??

...what you really need after reading that stinker though, is a good stiff drink...

 

[miraclesrule]

I read the entire Vanity Fair article that Ellen linked to on the night after Karen posted a portion. I was still seeing double the next day. Now y''all are going to cause me to stay up too late tonight to read the torture articles. Grrrrrrrrrr....

Ellen,
I loved the Vanity Fair article. Thank you posting it. It just goes to show that many, many people still have an instinctual gut that tells them something is not right, but don''t get the credit until enough reputable "in the know" people come forward. Then in hindsight, one is acknowledged (if they are lucky), to have been right all along. However, it is seldom that the people who were right are ever properly rewarded or publicly acknowleged.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/6/2009 5:37:42 PM
Author: ksinger
Whooo hooo! I finally finished the WHOLE thing!!! Do I get a cookie??

...what you really need after reading that stinker though, is a good stiff drink...

Frankly, I think you deserve both.

Quite a read, huh?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/6/2009 10:19:39 PM
Author: miraclesrule
I read the entire Vanity Fair article that Ellen linked to on the night after Karen posted a portion. I was still seeing double the next day. Now y''all are going to cause me to stay up too late tonight to read the torture articles. Grrrrrrrrrr....

Ellen,
I loved the Vanity Fair article. Thank you posting it. It just goes to show that many, many people still have an instinctual gut that tells them something is not right, but don''t get the credit until enough reputable ''in the know'' people come forward. Then in hindsight, one is acknowledged (if they are lucky), to have been right all along. However, it is seldom that the people who were right are ever properly rewarded or publicly acknowleged.

I''m glad you liked it miracles. And I agree with your sentiments..