Obama: ‘I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.’
Obama: ‘I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.’
During an interview with President Obama that aired on CNBC yesterday, chief Washington correspondent John Harwood said, “When you and I spoke in January, you said — I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming.” Harwood added that since then, Obama still hasn’t received much critical press and wondered if his administration isn’t being “sufficiently held accountable.” Obama, however, disagreed:
OBAMA: It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty…
HARWOOD: I assume you’re talking about Fox.
OBAMA: Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone. And you’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front.
Watch it:
Seeming to undermine the premise of his question, Harwood said after the interview that Obama has “gotten slapped around pretty good on our network for a while” too.
- Comments
- 177
Lugar disagrees with McCain’s call for the U.S. to ‘act’ against Iran.
Lugar disagrees with McCain’s call for the U.S. to ‘act’ against Iran.
Yesterday on Fox News, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called the Iranian election a “sham” and said that he hopes the U.S. “will act.” President Obama said that he would refrain from weighing in. “[We] want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football,” he said. Today, McCain responded, calling on Obama to turn up his rhetoric. “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights,” he said. But this morning on CBS, McCain’s Senate GOP colleague and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) sided with Obama:
HARRY SMITH: Beyond watching…beyond supporting the idea that these disputed votes should be recounted, is there anything the United States can do?
LUGAR: No. I think for the moment our position is to allow the Iranians to work out their situation. When popular revolutions occur, they come really from the people. They’re generated by people power within the country. For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy…and to use us, really, to retain their power.
Watch it:
As the Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted, “Were the U.S to clumsily wade into this Iranian political crisis, as McCain would have us do, it would support Ahmadinejad’s main arguments against his domestic opponents, and likely provide the perfect pretext for a more intense crackdown. In other words, the preferences of hardliners in Iran and the U.S. are pretty closely aligned here.”
CIA told Zubaydah they mistook him for a high-level al Qaeda operative.
CIA told Zubaydah they mistook him for a high-level al Qaeda operative.
According to new transcripts from of a 2007 Combatant Status Review Tribunal held at Guantanamo Bay, detainee Abu Zubaydah said that his CIA captors told him after he was subjected to torture that “they had mistakenly thought he was the No. 3 man in the organization’s hierarchy and a partner of Osama bin Laden.” “They told me, ‘Sorry, we discover that you are not Number 3, not a partner, not even a fighter,’” Zubaydah said. Zubaydah, who was subjected to waterboarding 83 times in one month, also said that he nearly died in prison:
Abu Zubaida, a nom de guerre for Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, told the 2007 panel of military officers at the detention facility in Cuba that “doctors told me that I nearly died four times” and that he endured “months of suffering and torture” on the false premise that he was an al-Qaeda leader.
Despite President Bush’s rhetoric, Zubaydah’s torture “foiled no plots,” a point that one of his interrogators confirmed during a congressional hearing last May. The portion of the 2007 Combatant Review Status hearing transcript in which Majid Khan — an alleged associate of Khalid Sheik Mohammad — discussed his treatment at CIA black sites was “blacked out for eight consecutive pages.”
Fleischer Claims ‘Substantial Reform Movement In Iran’ Is ‘Because Of George W. Bush’s Tough Policies’
Fleischer Claims ‘Substantial Reform Movement In Iran’ Is ‘Because Of George W. Bush’s Tough Policies’
The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports this morning that former Bush flack Ari Fleischer emailed fellow Post reporter Glenn Kessler before any results had been issued in Iran’s hotly-contested presidential election to give credit to his former boss for the “reformists’ surge” there. “[O]ne of the reasons there is a substantial reform movement in Iran — particularly among its young people — is because of George W. Bush’s tough policies,” Fleischer wrote. He continued:
“A big push for reform is because of the desire of Iranians to get out from sanctions, to put an end to the country’s international ostracism,” Fleischer wrote and, most interestingly, “because Shiites in particular see Shiites in Iraq having more freedoms than they do. Bush’s tough policies have helped give rise to the reformists and I think we’re witnessing that today.” [...]
So “I think it’s fair to say the George Bush’s Freedom Agenda planted seeds that have started to grow in the Middle East,” Fleischer concluded.
Aside from the fact that Fleischer’s claim cannot really ever be verified (a tactic former Bush administration officials use when defending their failed policies), it’s clear that Iran’s power in the region has grown significantly in the region since 2001 — a point one wonders if Fleischer will also give Bush credit for.
The Shiites’ “freedom” in Iraq has actually emboldened Iran’s standing and created a key new ally in the region. Iran has emerged as the chief beneficiary of Bush’s fool’s errand in Iraq. As journalist Robert Dreyfuss noted, “Washington’s decision to topple Saddam’s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States.” But also, Iran’s nuclear program has progressed greatly during the Bush years. Despite his “tough” policies, Iran has inched closer to a nuclear weapon, raising the possibility of greater instability in the region and even perhaps a new war.
It is also worth noting that hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran’s president in 2005 (during Bush’s presidency), supplanting a former moderate who held the office. In fact, reformers there said at the time that they wanted the Bush administration to tone down the harsh rhetoric:
“You are harmful for us. We try to tell politicians in Washington, D.C., please don’t do anything in favor of reform or to promote democracy in Iran. Because in 100% of the cases, it benefits the right wing,” said Saeed Leylaz, a business consultant and advocate of economic reform and greater dialogue with the West.
Steve Benen notes of Flesicher, “[W]hat’s a ‘veteran spinmeister’ to do? Tell reporters on Friday that before anyone looks favorably on the current American leadership, it’s more important to extol the previous American leadership — you know, the one who was widely reviled throughout the Middle East.”
Liz Cheney falsely claims Obama hasn’t said ‘I believe in American exceptionalism.’
Liz Cheney falsely claims Obama hasn’t said ‘I believe in American exceptionalism.’
Liz Cheney continued her seemingly unending campaign to flood the American media, and once again, she said something that isn’t true. This time, on CNN last night, she criticized the Obama administration for being “focused on the president’s popularity overseas.” “We’ve now seen several different occasions when he’s been on the international trips, where he’s not willing to say, flat out, ‘I believe in American exceptionalism,’” Cheney complained. But of course, Obama has said this. Last April during a press conference at the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, Obama was asked if he “subscribe[s]…to the school of American exceptionalism.” Obama replied:
OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. … And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
Watch the compilation:
No, Obama did not say “America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today,” as Cheney wishes. But she essentially wants him to stand in front of a room full of foreigners and say, “We’re better than you.” This is exactly the kind of cowboy diplomacy that has hurt America’s relationship with its allies over the last eight years and ultimately its standing in the world.
Rove: Bush Administration Has ‘No’ Responsibility For Current Budget Deficits
Rove: Bush Administration Has ‘No’ Responsibility For Current Budget Deficits
Last night on Fox News, former top Bush adviser Karl Rove chastised President Obama for his economic recovery package Congress passed last February and criticized him for his new proposal to enact “pay as you go” budgeting rules — paying for spending increases by either raising taxes or budget cuts.
“This is a cosmetic gesture. This guy is going to run up a $1.8 trillion deficit. That’s what it’s projected to be this year,” Rove complained. But when host Greta Van Susteren asked if the Bush administration is responsible for any of the deficit, Rove replied, “No.”:
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you take some responsibility, meaning you, the Bush eight years, for this…
ROVE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: You take absolutely no responsibility? Because…
ROVE: No.
Watch it:
Rove’s denial is odd, not only because the Bush administration turned President Clinton’s budget surplus into massive deficits and left with nearly half a trillion dollars in the hole, but also because Bush presided over the largest debt increase of any U.S. president in history. But the timing of Rove’s denial is odd as well because the New York Times published yesterday the results of an examination of Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade which found that Obama “is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits” and most of his adminstration’s contribution to the deficit is a result of continuing Bush policies:
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
“In other words,” Matt Yglesias writes, “the very high deficits are not Obama’s fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame.” See Yglesias’s pie chart illustrating the Times’s story here.
News Corp. forms ‘diversity community council’ in response to chimpanzee cartoon controversy.
News Corp. forms ‘diversity community council’ in response to chimpanzee cartoon controversy.
During the debate on the economic recovery package shortly after President Obama assumed office, News Corp’s New York Post ran a cartoon likening Obama to a dead chimpanzee. After protests and extended criticism, the Post editorialized that they apologize “to those who were offended by the image” while News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch later issued a personal apology. Now, the company has formed a diversity council in response the controversy:
News Corp. has agreed to form an external diversity council after meeting with civil rights groups about a New York Post cartoon that critics said likened President Barack Obama to a dead chimpanzee.
The company will form a “diversity community council” in New York City that will meet with senior company executives twice a year, NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous said Wednesday. It also will include a statement of commitment to diversity in its annual report.
Representatives from the NAACP, Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, the National Urban League, and 100 Black Men of America met with News Corp. executives on May 19, but it is unclear how diverse the council will be.
Liz Cheney Falsely Claims Bush ‘Did Not Say’ Gitmo Detainees Should Be Tried In U.S. Courts
Liz Cheney Falsely Claims Bush ‘Did Not Say’ Gitmo Detainees Should Be Tried In U.S. Courts
Last night, Vice President Cheney’s daughter Liz appeared on a mainstream American television news media outlet, this time on Campbell Brown’s CNN show. During a contentious “Great Debate” segment with Salon’s Joan Walsh, Liz Cheney was trying to argue that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. soil “makes us less safe” and that they should remain where they currently reside.
To make her argument, Cheney also continued her penchant for false claims. At one point in the debate, Walsh noted that military leaders want Gitmo closed and that even President Bush once said it should be closed and that some detainees should tried in the U.S. Cheney, however, disagreed:
WALSH: Liz, the top — the top military leaders of our country want Guantanamo closed. President Bush, in June 2009 [sic], gave a speech where he said he would close it, and he would bring people home and try them here.
CHENEY: No, I’m sorry.
WALSH: President Bush said that.
CHENEY: He did not say he would bring terrorists onto the homeland. Joan, no, he didn’t say that.
Watch it:
Walsh is right, Bush did say that. During a June 2006 press conference at a U.S.-EU summit, Bush called for Gitmo to be closed and to have some of the detainees tried in U.S. courts:
BUSH: I’d like to end Guantanamo. I’d like it to be over with. One of the things we will do is we’ll send people back to their home countries. [...] There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts. They’re cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they’re let out on the street. And yet, we believe there’s a — there ought to be a way forward in a court of law.
However, Cheney’s canards didn’t end there. She also offered the debunked claim that “14 percent” of Gitmo detainees have “returned to the battlefield,” a claim Walsh noted is “not true.” Indeed, last week the New York Times issued a correction to its story, saying that the number is closer to 5 percent.
Frank Gaffney claims Obama ‘may actually still be’ a Muslim.
Frank Gaffney claims Obama ‘may actually still be’ a Muslim.
Today in his Washington Times column, right-wing commentator Frank Gaffney reviews President Obama’s speech at Cairo University last week and thinks he has stumbled onto something, that “there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.” The evidence? “Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to ‘the Holy Koran,’” he “established his firsthand knowledge of Islam,” and he uttered the phrase “peace be upon them” when referring to Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed. And according to Gaffney, “no believing Christian” would ever make such a statement because “for Christians, Jesus is the living and immortal Son of God.” Gaffney also throws in a Munich analogy:
The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes that not only does Gaffney enjoy invoking the Munich analogy, particularly in places where it doesn’t make any sense (such as this case and others), but he also isn’t to be taken seriously “as an analyst.” But, “as someone willing to cast deeply irresponsible and transparently bigoted accusations against the president,” Duss argues, “he should be taken very seriously.”
Lugar Bucks Right-Wing Criticism Of Obama’s Cairo Speech: ‘I Don’t Agree’ That It Makes America Look Weak
Lugar Bucks Right-Wing Criticism Of Obama’s Cairo Speech: ‘I Don’t Agree’ That It Makes America Look Weak
Soon after President Obama delivered his enlightened speech at Cairo University in Egypt last Thursday, the right wing reflexively launched into attack mode. Led by Fox News, conservatives off all stripes began (again) touting the speech as another “tour of apology.” Charles Krauthammer claimed Obama “was exceedingly weak” on Iran, while a sizable right-wing chorus bemoaned what they deemed as instances of “moral equivalency” in the speech. “I think it makes America look weak,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) complained of the speech.
However, during an interview with Bloomberg News this past weekend, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member of Foreign Relations Committee, broke ranks with his party’s criticism of Obama. Lugar called it an “important speech,” adding that he “thought” it “struck the right tone.” Asked if Obama was “tough enough” on Iran, Lugar responded, “Oh I suspect so for that particular purpose.”
When Hunt asked if “there was a moral equivalence message in the speech,” Lugar didn’t take the bait. “I think there was some attempt to find a balanced nuanced situation,” he replied. And then he distanced himself from Boehner:
HUNT: How about the charge of some critics like Republican leader John Boehner that it was too apologetic, that it was too weak and almost groveling?
LUGAR: I do not agree with that.
Watch it:
Lugar expounded on the “moral equivalency” charges, especially with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian issue by pointing out that Obama was simply “asking people to forget the past” because the arguments about which side has suffered more bring you “back to square one.”
Commenting on the right wing’s “apology tour” cries, Lugar said there is “a lack of sympathy for our country,” adding, “We probably as Americans need to give a lot of speeches in the Arab world.”
Transcript: More »
NYT Finally Runs ‘Editor’s Note’ Correction To Misleading Gitmo Detainee ‘Recidivism’ Story
NYT Finally Runs ‘Editor’s Note’ Correction To Misleading Gitmo Detainee ‘Recidivism’ Story
Last month, the New York Times ran a front page story titled “1 In 7 Detainees Returned to Jihad, Pentagon Finds.” Relying on a unpublicized DoD report, the article said that “74 prisoners released from Guantánamo have returned to terrorism, making for a recidivism rate of nearly 14 percent.” Critics pointed out that these statistics don’t take into account the possibility that released detainees were not terrorists to begin with and were radicalized by their detention. Seeming to take note of this criticism, the Times soon after changed the headline and lead of the web version of the story.
The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss noted that the Times’ web-only rewrite ignored the fact that the article “still contain[ed] references to ‘recidivism,’ which still presumes that detainees were involved in terrorism before being detained.” Today, the Times finally got around to addressing the story’s inaccuracies in its print edition in an “Editor’s Note.” And while the article still contains references to “recidivism,” the Times acknowledges the error:
The article said that the Pentagon had found about one in seven of former Guantánamo prisoners had “returned to terrorism or other militant activity,” or as the headline put it, had “rejoined jihad.”
Those phrases accepted a premise of the report that all the former prisoners had been engaged in terrorism before their detention. Because that premise remains unproved, the day the article appeared in the newspaper, editors changed the headline and the first paragraph on the Times Web site to refer to prisoners the report said had engaged in terrorism or militant activity since their release.
CAP’s Ken Gude noted at the time “the enormous caveat” in the 17th paragraph of the Times article:
The Pentagon has provided no way of authenticating its 45 unnamed recidivists, and only a few of the 29 people identified by name can be independently verified as having engaged in terrorism since their release. Many of the 29 are simply described as associating with terrorists or training with terrorists, with almost no other details provided.
The editors’ note addresses this as well, saying that “[t]he article should have distinguished between the two categories, to say that about one in 20 of former Guantánamo prisoners described in the Pentagon report were now said to be engaging in terrorism.”
McClatchy’s Planet Washington notes that “one key question remains unknown,” asking, “How many of these confirmed and suspected jihadis became such because of their experiences at Guantanamo and elsewhere? ”
Some Congressional Democrats Are Undermining Obama’s Israel-Palestine Policy
Some Congressional Democrats Are Undermining Obama’s Israel-Palestine Policy
Last month, President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pressed for focus on a resolution to the Israel-Palestine dispute. Obama specifically called on Israel to freeze all settlements in the West Bank. “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.”
Previous Israeli governments have come to expect the White House to allow loopholes in any demand on settlement freezes, such as the Bush administration’s back-door agreement with the Israelis back in late 2002 allowing expansion within existing West Bank settlements, what the Israelis call “natural growth.” Israelis have used “natural growth” arguments to justify funding further settlement expansion. In fact, recent data show that “in 2007, natural growth accounted for 63 percent of settlement population growth, whereas internal migration accounted for 37 percent.”
This time, however, the Obama administration is holding firm and doing so publicly. More importantly, it appeared that Netanyahu ran into problems when dealing with Congress on the settlement issue soon after meeting Obama:
Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team’s message to Netanyahu. What changed? “Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration … because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel,” the former senior Clinton administration official said.
However, Politico reports this week that support for Obama’s message on Israel-Palestine among Democrats in Congress is starting to wane. “My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV). Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) complained, “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.” Today, the L.A. Times reports more dissent from congressional Democrats:
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House foreign affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said focusing on settlement activity “detracts” from top U.S. goals in the region. However, he added: “I do not support a settlement freeze that calls on Israeli families not to grow, get married, or forces them to throw away their grandparents. Telling people not to have children is unthinkable and inhumane.“
Ackerman’s claim is a canard. No one is calling on Israeli families “not to grow.” And as Matt Yglesias notes, “Ackerman’s position is just the position that peace is impossible, and that Israel must fight forever to squeeze the Palestinians out of the West Bank, while the Palestinians must fight forever for the destruction of Israel.”
Moreover, Weiner’s comment is not even factually accurate; Obama has made it very clear on numerous occasions that the Palestinians must meet their obligations under the “road map” to a two-state solution laid out in 2003. But Obama has also said the Israelis must meet their obligations as well. A provision in the road map specifically states that Israel “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).”
In an interview with NPR this week, Obama acknowledged that private agreements with the Israelis on the settlements issue (such as the Bush administration’s in 2002) undermines American credibility in the peace process. “I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says,” he said, adding that “it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace and that there’s not equivocation and there’s not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side; it’s going to have to be two-sided.”
Indeed, today in his speech at Cairo University in Egypt, Obama said that both sides need to follow through with their commitments. “The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people…Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist,” he said. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”
Petraeus Criticizes Gitmo And Torture: ‘I Don’t Think We Should Be Afraid To Live Our Values’
Petraeus Criticizes Gitmo And Torture: ‘I Don’t Think We Should Be Afraid To Live Our Values’
Last week, Gen. David Petraeus told Radio Free Europe that he supports President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and that he opposes the use of so-called “enhance interrogation techniques.” “I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention,” Petraeus said.
Today in an interview with Fox News, Petraeus reiterated his support for a “responsible closure” of Gitmo but went a bit further, noting that the prison has been harmful to the U.S.:
PETRAEUS: Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
As Fox host Martha MacCallum went through most of the right-wing talking points on Gitmo and torture (Gitmo terrorists will “go free” in the U.S, torture works and should be used for the “ticking-time bomb” scenario) Petraeus knocked them down one-by-one. “I don’t think we should be afraid to live our values,” Petraeus repeatedly said.
Seemingly referring to Obama’s decision to release the Bush-era memos documenting President Bush’s torture program, MacCallum asked, “So is sending this signal that we’re not going to use the techniques anymore, what impact will that have on those who do us harm in the field that you operate in?” Again, Petraeus noted that such policies and techniques harm the U.S.
PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
Bush still pre-screening questions at speaking events.
Bush still pre-screening questions at speaking events.
Throughout George W. Bush’s presidency, his handlers always made a special effort to ensure his appearances with regular Americans were scripted in such a way that shined the best possible light on Bush and his polices. Whether he was meeting troops in Iraq, leading “Ask President Bush” re-election campaign events, or trying to sell his (failed) Social Security reform plan, Bush always had a friend in the audience ready to ask a softball question or heap praise on the president. It appears that old habits die hard, as those attending Bush’s upcoming speech in Michigan will be forced to submit their questions ahead of time:
Former President George W. Bush will make a stop in Michiana on Thursday. He is scheduled to speak to the Economic Club in Benton Harbor this evening. Mister Bush will answer questions that have been submitted.
Even though Bush recently acknowledged that it is “liberating” to no longer be president, he apparently still feels “pretty comfortable inside the bubble.”
Liz Cheney Reveals That Fear Of Prosecution Motivates Dad’s Media Blitz Defending Torture
Liz Cheney Reveals That Fear Of Prosecution Motivates Dad’s Media Blitz Defending Torture
Since President Obama released Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel memos detailing the authorization of the Bush administration’s torture program, Vice President Cheney has taken to the public airwaves on numerous occasions, not only attacking Obama’s security policies but vigorously defending what he perceives (wrongly) as the efficacy of torture. “I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives,” Cheney said recently on CBS.
In response, many in the media have asked why Cheney — someone who had avoided the media at all costs during his eight years as vice president — would be airing his opinions in such a forceful and public way. Indeed, Cheney himself has answered this question, claiming he is speaking out because he believes that torture and other Bush administration anti-terror policies — many of which Obama is abandoning — were “exactly the right thing to do” and that “there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth.”
In turn, media figures have answered the question in much the same way. “I think he genuinely believes we are threatened now more because of what Obama is doing,” MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan has said. CNN’s David Gergen said, “I think Dick Cheney almost has a Churchillian view of this, and that is somebody has got to stand up and be the voice in the wilderness.” But while the narrative of Cheney’s motives focuses mainly on the righteous, it has all but ignored the selfish — that Cheney is trying to muddle the public debate with the goal of reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized.
Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:
L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.
Watch it:
Does Liz Cheney also fear that her dad will be prosecuted for his role in the Bush administration’s torture program? Perhaps so. As Steve Benen has noted, “Liz Cheney has been all over the television news” as well, with “12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks.”
Bush: ‘It’s a liberating feeling’ that I am no longer president.
Bush: ‘It’s a liberating feeling’ that I am no longer president.
New Mexico’s Roswell Daily Record reports that during a speech to graduating local high school students, President Bush “expressed few regrets” about the policies he enacted as president. At the same time, however, Bush said that he’s glad he’s not in the position to make policy anymore. “I no longer feel that great sense of responsibility that I had when I was in the Oval Office,” he said. “And frankly, it’s a liberating feeling.” Bush also remarked on how his life is “back to normal”:
Bush told the soon-to-be-graduates that it was a strange experience walking his dog Barney in his new neighborhood after he moved back to Texas.
“I realized this was the first time I’d been walking in a neighborhood for 14 years,” he said. “It’s not all that hard, by the way. You take one step, and then you take another.”
It was the first time Barney had ever been in an ordinary neighborhood, and Bush had to stop when the dog took liberties with a neighbor’s yard.
“And there I was, former President of the United States of America, with a plastic bag on my hand,” he recalled. “Life is returning back to normal.”
Real estate brochure offers rare glimpse inside Bush’s Dallas home.
Real estate brochure offers rare glimpse inside Bush’s Dallas home.
The Dallas Morning News reports that the Preston Hollow People newspaper has found a real estate brochure from 2007 that “offers a peek at what the Preston Hollow home of George and Laura Bush looked like before the couple moved from Washington.” Their new ranch-style home at 10141 Daria Place has 5 bedrooms, 6.5 bathrooms, “a library, a limestone fireplace, a gallery, a large play room, and a marble bath.” The Preston Hollow article notes that a $3.1 million loan had been issued for the home in October 2008 but also that the home’s market value is appraised at $2.1 million.
(Photo credit: People Newspapers)
Decorated fighter pilot fought DADT discharge hoping Obama would end the policy.
Decorated fighter pilot fought DADT discharge hoping Obama would end the policy.
Last night on MSNBC, host Rachel Maddow interviewed Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a decorated U.S. Air Force fighter pilot who received notice last September that he was being discharged due to the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Fehrenbach served in both the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, was just two years away from retiring with a full pension, and estimates that the U.S. military spent roughly $25 million training him. When he received word of his discharge, Fehrenbach decided to fight, hoping that, if elected, Obama would quickly change the policy:
FEHRENBACH: But the more I thought about it, about how wrong this policy is, I thought that I had to fight and perhaps with my unique perspective, I could speak out and help other people in the meantime.
MADDOW: Did you think that President Obama, if he were elected, was going to end the policy?
FEHRENBACH: I did. I had tremendous hope around September and that was actually when I did reverse my decision and decided to fight because I did have hope that President Obama would follow through on his commitment to change the policy and — and initiate a policy of non discrimination.
Watch the interview here:
Transcript: More »
Karen Hughes ‘worried’ that torture would harm U.S. image, was ‘very vocal’ in internal debate.
Karen Hughes ‘worried’ that torture would harm U.S. image, was ‘very vocal’ in internal debate.
Last month, Phillip Zelikow disclosed that while serving as a top-aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005, he had written and circulated a memo expressing grave concerns about the Bush administration’s torture regime. Another memo Zelikow co-authored at around the same time even offered a legal alternative to the program. Now, it turns out that strong opposition to President Bush’s interrogation policies came from within his tight-knit inner circle. Karen Hughes, counselor to the president, told the Houston Chronicle this week that she was “very vocal in the internal debate”:
She acknowledged the current uproar over interrogation tactics and allegations of prisoner torture during the Bush years.
“I was very vocal in the internal debate,” she said. “I worried about how that would make us look in the eyes of the world. But I had left the White House when a lot of that was taking place.”
Then she paused, worried for the first time in 90 minutes that she’d made a gaffe. Whatever Sen. John McCain says about interrogation techniques, she added quickly, she has similar views.
Wash. Post’s Cillizza Uses GOP Poll To Claim That ‘Most’ Americans Say Torture Is ‘Justified’
Wash. Post’s Cillizza Uses GOP Poll To Claim That ‘Most’ Americans Say Torture Is ‘Justified’
Today in the Washington Post, reporter Chris Cillizza has an article titled “Some Call It Torture. In One Poll, Most Call It Justified.” According to Cillizza, “[A] new poll conducted for Resurgent Republic suggests that the American people — including politically critical independent voters — by and large support the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ [EITs] on suspected al-Qaeda operatives“:
Asked whether such tactics were justified, 53 percent of the overall sample said they were and 34 percent said they were not. [...]
On the question of whether such techniques have yielded information that has made the country safer, 52 percent of all respondents said they had while 39 percent said they had not.
Aside from the fact that Cillizza bases his story on a poll from a firm “made up of Republican strategists,” as he acknowledges, the poll’s questions are conducted in such a way that appear to lead the respondents toward support of torture. In Cillizza’s first example — 53 percent say EITs are justified — the poll’s actual question reads, “Based on what you have read or heard, would you say harsh interrogation of detainees was justified or not justified?” Of course, the poll doesn’t ask if “torture” is justifed. Instead it asks if respondents support “harsh interrogation” — the Bush administration’s preferred language for its torture program. Moreover, the question does not give specific examples of such “harsh interrogation” that would give any determination as to what exactly its respondents are supporting.
As far as Cillizza noting the poll’s finding that 52 percent say EITs have made the country safer, again, consider the poll’s actual question. The poll asks respondents if they agree with “Congressman A” who says EITs should not be used because they are “torture” and have not made the U.S. safer or with “Congressman B” who says, “Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11.” Given the latter option, it is indeed quite surprising that more Americans would not be in favor, even though such a “ticking time-bomb” situation rarely, if ever, occurs.
Cillizza later cited a recent CNN poll showing a closer “divide” on the issue, with 50 percent supporting torture and 46 percent disapproving. But he ignored a recent poll from his own newspaper which found that “49 percent said they oppose the use of torture no matter the circumstance, 48 percent said there are some cases in which the U.S. should consider it.”
Like Cillizza, the media is caught up in American public opinion based on questions about what has not happened (so-called EITs, ticking-time bomb scenarios, etc.) versus what has actually happened (i.e. torture and potential lawbreaking). Indeed, Congress Matters’s David Waldman made this point in a recent CNN appearance in reference to the media ignoring reports that Vice President Cheney ordered waterboarding to find a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda:
WALDMAN: I know of no American on either side or in the middle who says that its acceptable to be torturing people to get them to say –- to give them the political story you want to give you political comfort back home. I mean this is an astounding violation of international human rights. [...] You tell me whether there are people in America who agree with the prospect of torturing people for political gain.
Seeming to recognize the distinction the media makes between the reality of the Bush torture regime and how they cover it, Waldman later added that “everyone has been asked whether or not they can support torture for the cases of the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario. These are people who were being tortured for political reasons. That’s what makes it so disgusting. There’s no framework for dealing with that on television in America.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll