In a new book, the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) operations wing discussed publicly for the first time his role in destroying videos of interrogations that involved torture — including 92 videos of the waterboarding of suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah. The former official, Jose Rodriguez, reportedly laces his book with scathing criticisms of President Obama and his administration’s anti-torture policies. “I cannot tell you how disgusted my former colleagues and I felt to hear ourselves labeled ‘torturers’ by the president of the United States,” he writes in “Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives,” due out next week. Rodrigues was referring to “waterboarding,” which the American people, international law, and even some Republicans consider to be torture.

But for some reviewers, the most eye-catching revelation has focused on Rodriguez’s role in destroying the interrogation tapes that included waterboarding. Upon the closing of one of the CIA’s “black sites” — secret detention centers used to keep so-called “high-level detainees” off the grid and outside even U.S. law — Rodriguez was asked about destroying the tapes, and leaned toward the affirmative. But a memo from his superiors told him to hold off. After his superiors’ wavering between allowing the tapes’ destruction and then backing off, it was finally the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that pushed Rodriguez to order the videos destroyed. According to a review in the Washington Post, Rodriguez wrote:

We knew that if the photos of CIA officers conducting authorized EIT [enhanced interrogation techniques] ever got out, the difference between a legal, authorized, necessary, and safe program and the mindless actions of some MPs [military police] would be buried by the impact of the images.

The propaganda damage to the image of America would be immense. But the main concern then, and always, was for the safety of my officers.

…I was not depriving anyone of information about what was done or what was said. I was just getting rid of some ugly visuals that could put the lives of my people at risk.

Dana Priest, the Post reviewer who had her own run-in with Rodriguez when in the process of exposing the “black sites,” commented on the ex-spy’s motivations for destroying the videos:

In this case, a loyal civil servant — and the decision-makers above him who blessed these programs — were not thinking about the larger, longer-lasting damage to the core values of the United States that disclosure of these secrets might cause. They were thinking about the near term. About efficiency. About the safety of friends and colleagues. In their minds, they were thinking, too, about the safety of the country.

Rodriguez also contends in his book that it was the Bush administration’s torture program that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden — a common theme among proponents of torture:

I am certain, beyond any doubt, that these techniques… shielded the people of the United States from harm and led to the capture and killing of Usama bin Ladin.

That view is at odds with former interrogators and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Diane Feinstein. Amid an extensive investigation of the techniques, Feinsten was asked if the harsh methods played a role in finding and killing Osama bin Laden. “To date, the answer to your question is no,” she replied.

Florida resident and 76 year-old Vietnam war veteran Jerry Meekins recently purchased a ticket from Spirit Airlines to visit his daughter in New Jersey. But soon after he bought the ticket, his doctors informed him that he is dying from esophageal cancer and that he shouldn’t fly. Meekins thought he’d ask Spirit if he could get his money back: “I said, ‘What’s the possibility of getting a refund?’ They said, ‘We don’t do that.’” Meekins added that he “offered them all of the confirmation from my oncologist, from hospice, even my pre-paid funeral package. They didn’t want to look at any of it or hear about it. They just wanted to keep the money.”

A spokesperson for the airline told the local NBC affiliate that they won’t be refunding Meekins’ ticket:

“Our reservations are non-refundable, which means we don’t do refunds and we are not going to issue Mr. Meekins a refund. We offer our customers affordable travel insurance to cover a variety of unexpected circumstances that may arise and many of our customers choose to take advantage of this option.

“We receive many requests for refunds every day for similar situations. It wouldn’t be fair to bend policy for one and not all. We will not make customers who follow the rules pay for those who don’t. It’s just not fair.”

Watch the report:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Meekins said that now it’s not about getting his money back. “My primary goal is to have them change their policy of a blanket coverage of no refund,” he said.

After a dozen years out of Congress, former Senator Bob Kerry (D) launched a bid to fill his old seat from Nebraska, replacing, he hopes, retiring Senator Ben Nelson (D). This week, the Kerrey campaign released a video staking out an unusually bold stance for a Congressional candidates: strongly opposing a war with Iran.

In the video, released Monday, Kerrey begins by lining up some of the extraordinary costs — human and financial — of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially the tolls these conflicts have taken on members of the armed services. Kerrey then puts Iran in context to these countries: “80 million people in Iran?” He then says of a potential large-scale war with Iran:

I think it would be a disaster. … It’ll make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a cakewalk.

Watch the campaign video:

The reference to a “cakewalk” should not be lost on anyone: that’s how Bush administration adviser Kenneth Adelman suggested an invasion of Iraq would play out. Nearly 5,000 dead service members and costs that could rise to as much as $1.5 trillion later, the Bush administration’s march to Baghdad was anything but the easy-going adventure they promised. Likewise, Iran hawks (many of them the same characters who pushed for the Iraq war) downplay the potential costs of war with Iran.

Kerrey’s entrée into the Iran debate seems particularly important, as journalist Jim Lobe points out, precisely because Kerrey, in the run up to the Iraq war, was aligned with the factions pressing hardest for an attack and invasion. Kerrey, a decorated Vietnam veteran and sometimes-hawkish Democrat, served on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a neoconservative dominated pressure group that relentlessly pursued regime change.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime, though U.S. and Israeli intelligence have not concluded that Iran has made a decision to pursue a weapon. The Obama administration vows to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility, but the efficacy and consequences of a strike raise serious questions, leading the U.S. to pursue, for the meantime, a pressure track aimed at a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Discussions surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons ambitions frequently cross the line into unsubstantiated assertions about Iran’s nuclear intentions and capabilities. But in an interview with Haaretz, Israel’s chief military officer offered a more nuanced view of Iran’s nuclear program.

Lieutenant General Benny Gantz told Haaretz that Iran has not yet made critical decisions:

[Iran] is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile.

Gantz also emphasized that Iran is a rational actor, a departure from hawks who claim that Iran’s leadership is irrational:

[The acquisition of a nuclear bomb] will happen if [Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei judges that he is invulnerable to a response. I believe he would be making an enormous mistake, and I don’t think he will want to go the extra mile. I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people. But I agree that such a capability, in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists who at particular moments could make different calculations, is dangerous.

The Israeli military chief said that all options — including the military one — remain on the table for Israel and that “This is a critical year, but not necessarily ‘go, no-go.’” And he reported that diplomatic presure and economic sanctions are begining to bear fruit.

Gantz’s comments contrast with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hawkish rhetoric on Iran. In an interview with CNN’s Erin Burnett last night, Netanyahu questioned Iran’s rationality:

I don’t think you want to bet the peace in the Middle East and the security of the world on Iran’s rational behavior.

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, and the nuclear non-proliferation regime. While hawkish rhetoric towards Iran is becoming a normal occurrence in the political discourses in both Israel and the U.S., neither IAEA, Israeli nor U.S. intelligence estimates conclude that Iran has decided to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration has vowed to keep “all options on the table” to deal with the possibility of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon but the efficacy and consequences of such a military strike continue to raise serious questions.

The Army Times reported in February that anti-war GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) was at that time, “by far,” getting the most in campaign contributions from members of the United States military. According to a review of Federal Election Commission data, Paul received nearly $250,000 in donations from servicemembers, President Obama, $130,000 and GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney just $23,000.

But now that Paul’s campaign is all but over and presumably, Romney will be the Republican nominee, the military’s donation trend is beginning to shift: away from Paul and toward Obama, the Open Secrets blog reports:

[I]n March, it was Obama that scooped up the most support from the armed forces — about twice as much as Paul, in fact. Romney remains an also-ran when it comes to backing from the military.

Overall, Paul retains the lead. Analysis of OpenSecrets.org data shows that so far in this election cycle, members of the military who donated more than $200 have given Paul’s campaign about $333,134, versus $184,505 to Obama and just $45,738 to Romney.

But in March, Obama and Paul switched places. Members of the military sent $36,448 to Obama and just $17,733 to Paul. Even though Romney solidified his position as the presumptive Republican nominee, military donations to his campaign remained anemic — only $8,630.

Open Secrets charts the donations for March:

The 2012 trend in military donations to presidential candidates mirrors 2008. Early on in the race, both Paul and Obama led Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and other pro-war candidates in campaign contributions from U.S. servicemembers and by the time the Texas congressman exited the race, Obama maintained his lead in military donations over McCain.