Conservatives repeat inane claim that CO2 can't
be a pollutant because "we breathe" it

Pointing to the natural occurrence of carbon dioxide, which is exhaled by humans, conservatives in the media -- including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Jim Quinn -- have challenged, and even ridiculed, the idea that its presence can be harmful to the environment. For example, after claiming on the May 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show that carbon cap-and-trade proposals are based on "the phony science of global warming," Sean Hannity stated, "You know what? The Earth -- we breathe carbon dioxide. You know, if you -- there's nothing wrong with the automobile." Other examples include:

• On the May 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn stated, "Carbon is not pollution. I repeat, carbon is not pollution. We are made of carbon. Carbon is essential. Carbon dioxide is essential. As a matter of fact, we probably have too little carbon dioxide in the air right now. We could use more."

• On the May 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a memo reportedly issued by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy that argued against regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Limbaugh stated, "This is again not a surprise to me because we exhale C0₂. If it were a poison, if it were something -- we would -- wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive."

• On the May 13 edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated, "Carbon dioxide is basically this" -- and exhaled. He further remarked: "Look how much pollution I just put out."

• On the April 28 edition of his Fox News show, during an interview with Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett, Beck stated, "I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO₂ off," and then exhaled. He added, "Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because" -- and he exhaled again -- "that's a dangerous gas." Seconds later, Beck exhaled into his cupped hands to demonstrate "sequestering" carbon dioxide, and then described cap-and-trade policies as being "only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right?"

• On the April 21 broadcast of his radio show, Beck asked, "[H]ow could carbon dioxide be a poison when it's naturally occurring and the trees use it to grow?" He added: "Stop. Just stop, will you? Stop with the lies."

But scientists are not saying that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful, as Media Matters for America has documented. Rather, they point to the danger posed to the atmosphere by excessive discharges of C0₂, as the Natural Resources Defense Council has noted:

[A] pollutant is a substance that causes harm when present in excessive amounts. CO₂ has been in the atmosphere since life on earth began, and in the right amounts CO₂ is important for making the earth hospitable for continued life. But when too much CO₂ is put into the atmosphere, it becomes harmful. We have long recognized this fact for other pollutants. For example, phosphorus is a valuable fertilizer, but in excess, it can kill lakes and streams by clogging them with a blanket of algae.

Indeed, while C0₂ is a natural gas, the current levels in the atmosphere are the result of human activities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, "Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution."

According the 2007 United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 "Synthesis Report," "Global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004." It further explains, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004."

From the May 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

QUINN: By the way, a note to Repower America, who keeps running these commercials about how cap and trade and green energy's going to be the solution to everything and the steelworkers are all going to be employed and all that stuff? Carbon is not pollution. I repeat, carbon is not pollution. We are made of carbon. Carbon is essential. Carbon dioxide is essential. As a matter of fact, we probably have too little carbon dioxide in the air right now. We could use more. Because the earth is cooling, and it's cooling rapidly.

From the April 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: James, cap and trade: Not a tax?

HACKETT: Oh, it's definitely a tax, Glenn. And I think anybody who tells you otherwise is treating you to fiction. The key is --

BECK: Explain it to the American people in a way they can see how this scam -- I mean, this plan works.

HACKETT: I think you've got to start, actually, back with what carbon does to the world. And I think that all of us are familiar with burning wood, you know, centuries ago. We've advanced as a society where we're much more efficient in the burning of carbon fuels. It constitutes about 3 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions, so you're talking about a very small portion of all of the greenhouse gases. The rest is actually water vapor.

Of that 3 percent, another portion of that is man-made emissions. There's a lot of other CO₂ emissions from other places. And it's a life-giving form, as many of us know, because plants use it. We breathe it about every three seconds. We exhale it.

BECK: Yeah, hang on just a second.

HACKETT: And to think that the EP--

BECK: Hang on. Let me just inter-- James, I'm sorry to interrupt. America, I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO₂ off. Ready?

[exhales]

Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because [exhales] that's a dangerous gas. OK. So, anyway, you were saying?

HACKETT: Well, and I think all of us can agree that man-made emissions can't possibly be good, but it means at what cost do we change that, that model that has taken us over a century to build? And our view is, we were, you know, original -- we were original climate reporters and founding reporters in The Climate Registry. We've got the largest CO₂ sequestration project in the world in Wyoming, that we're taking CO₂ that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. We're a founding member of the American Carbon Registry. We care deeply about --

BECK: OK, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So, that's -- sequestering it, that would be --

[Beck exhales into his cupped hands]

HACKETT: Right. Holding your breath. That's right.

BECK [whispering]: Put it in my pocket.

HACKETT: And so I think why you care about it -- you care about it in an intelligent, prudent way, and you don't treat it as if it's an EPA-regulated toxic gas, which is what they're suggesting. It's not a toxic gas by definition. And to suggest that the science on it is completely determined is also, I think, a big mistake.

BECK: OK, so now we've taken this --

HACKETT: It only took --

BECK: And, now, hang on just very quick. We take this invisible gas that [exhales] -- OK? Now, I'm only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right?

If I only breathe 30 times a day, well, then, I can sell those extra 20 breaths to somebody else that wants to breathe 20 times more than 50, correct?

From the May 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: By the way, just so you know, because I know -- this show has won so many science awards. Sometimes, we get talking about highfalutin science things like this and people are like, "What are you talking about?" So, let me just break it down. Carbon dioxide is basically this:

[exhales]

Look how much pollution I just put out.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Conservatives repeat inane claim that C02 can't
be a pollutant because "we breathe" it

Pointing to the natural occurrence of carbon dioxide, which is exhaled by humans, conservatives in the media -- including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Jim Quinn -- have challenged, and even ridiculed, the idea that its presence can be harmful to the environment. For example, after claiming on the May 20 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show that carbon cap-and-trade proposals are based on "the phony science of global warming," Sean Hannity stated, "You know what? The Earth -- we breathe carbon dioxide. You know, if you -- there's nothing wrong with the automobile." Other examples include:

• On the May 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose, co-host Jim Quinn stated, "Carbon is not pollution. I repeat, carbon is not pollution. We are made of carbon. Carbon is essential. Carbon dioxide is essential. As a matter of fact, we probably have too little carbon dioxide in the air right now. We could use more."

• On the May 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a memo reportedly issued by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy that argued against regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Limbaugh stated, "This is again not a surprise to me because we exhale C0₂. If it were a poison, if it were something -- we would -- wouldn't be part of the way we stay alive."

• On the May 13 edition of his Fox News program, Beck stated, "Carbon dioxide is basically this" -- and exhaled. He further remarked: "Look how much pollution I just put out."

• On the April 28 edition of his Fox News show, during an interview with Anadarko Petroleum CEO James Hackett, Beck stated, "I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO₂ off," and then exhaled. He added, "Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because" -- and he exhaled again -- "that's a dangerous gas." Seconds later, Beck exhaled into his cupped hands to demonstrate "sequestering" carbon dioxide, and then described cap-and-trade policies as being "only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right?"

• On the April 21 broadcast of his radio show, Beck asked, "[H]ow could carbon dioxide be a poison when it's naturally occurring and the trees use it to grow?" He added: "Stop. Just stop, will you? Stop with the lies."

But scientists are not saying that carbon dioxide is inherently harmful, as Media Matters for America has documented. Rather, they point to the danger posed to the atmosphere by excessive discharges of C0₂, as the Natural Resources Defense Council has noted:

[A] pollutant is a substance that causes harm when present in excessive amounts. CO₂ has been in the atmosphere since life on earth began, and in the right amounts CO₂ is important for making the earth hospitable for continued life. But when too much CO₂ is put into the atmosphere, it becomes harmful. We have long recognized this fact for other pollutants. For example, phosphorus is a valuable fertilizer, but in excess, it can kill lakes and streams by clogging them with a blanket of algae.

Indeed, while C0₂ is a natural gas, the current levels in the atmosphere are the result of human activities. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, "Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700's, human activities, such as the burning of oil, coal and gas, and deforestation, have increased CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution."

According the 2007 United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 "Synthesis Report," "Global GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004." It further explains, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80%, from 21 to 38 gigatonnes (Gt), and represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2004."

From the May 20 broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

QUINN: By the way, a note to Repower America, who keeps running these commercials about how cap and trade and green energy's going to be the solution to everything and the steelworkers are all going to be employed and all that stuff? Carbon is not pollution. I repeat, carbon is not pollution. We are made of carbon. Carbon is essential. Carbon dioxide is essential. As a matter of fact, we probably have too little carbon dioxide in the air right now. We could use more. Because the earth is cooling, and it's cooling rapidly.

From the April 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: James, cap and trade: Not a tax?

HACKETT: Oh, it's definitely a tax, Glenn. And I think anybody who tells you otherwise is treating you to fiction. The key is --

BECK: Explain it to the American people in a way they can see how this scam -- I mean, this plan works.

HACKETT: I think you've got to start, actually, back with what carbon does to the world. And I think that all of us are familiar with burning wood, you know, centuries ago. We've advanced as a society where we're much more efficient in the burning of carbon fuels. It constitutes about 3 percent of all the greenhouse gas emissions, so you're talking about a very small portion of all of the greenhouse gases. The rest is actually water vapor.

Of that 3 percent, another portion of that is man-made emissions. There's a lot of other CO₂ emissions from other places. And it's a life-giving form, as many of us know, because plants use it. We breathe it about every three seconds. We exhale it.

BECK: Yeah, hang on just a second.

HACKETT: And to think that the EP--

BECK: Hang on. Let me just inter-- James, I'm sorry to interrupt. America, I'm going to harm the planet. I'm going to give some CO₂ off. Ready?

[exhales]

Dangerous. That should have been bottled and kept away from the planet because [exhales] that's a dangerous gas. OK. So, anyway, you were saying?

HACKETT: Well, and I think all of us can agree that man-made emissions can't possibly be good, but it means at what cost do we change that, that model that has taken us over a century to build? And our view is, we were, you know, original -- we were original climate reporters and founding reporters in The Climate Registry. We've got the largest CO₂ sequestration project in the world in Wyoming, that we're taking CO₂ that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. We're a founding member of the American Carbon Registry. We care deeply about --

BECK: OK, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So, that's -- sequestering it, that would be --

[Beck exhales into his cupped hands]

HACKETT: Right. Holding your breath. That's right.

BECK [whispering]: Put it in my pocket.

HACKETT: And so I think why you care about it -- you care about it in an intelligent, prudent way, and you don't treat it as if it's an EPA-regulated toxic gas, which is what they're suggesting. It's not a toxic gas by definition. And to suggest that the science on it is completely determined is also, I think, a big mistake.

BECK: OK, so now we've taken this --

HACKETT: It only took --

BECK: And, now, hang on just very quick. We take this invisible gas that [exhales] -- OK? Now, I'm only allowed to breathe, let's say, 50 times a day. If I breathe any more than 50 times a day, then I have to pay for all of the stuff that comes out of my mouth, right?

If I only breathe 30 times a day, well, then, I can sell those extra 20 breaths to somebody else that wants to breathe 20 times more than 50, correct?

From the May 13 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: By the way, just so you know, because I know -- this show has won so many science awards. Sometimes, we get talking about highfalutin science things like this and people are like, "What are you talking about?" So, let me just break it down. Carbon dioxide is basically this:

[exhales]

Look how much pollution I just put out.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Digging Deeper

We've got reaction to and analysis of the Obama speech at TPMDC and the Cheney speech at TPMmuckraker.I particularly want to flag Zack's post noting that Cheney pulled out another reliable standby from the Bush years: a democratic society even debating[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/4xgZ0WNjjEQ/digging_deeper.
php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The Nattering Nabobs of Knee-Knocking

Post Author: Omnipotent Poobah
Nobody is more weak-kneed than a chicken-hawk. The former Vice Capon and his nattering nabobs of knee-knocking prove that with a Chicken Little worldview that says closing Guantanamo or granting internees actual non-simian trials is the end of democracy as we know it.

Cross posted at <a href="http://omnipotentpoobah.com" title="Scintillating reading for discerning mammals">The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!</a>

Read The Full Article:
http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/May2009/21/The_Nattering_Nabobs_of_
Knee_Knocking.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Big Fat Cowards and the Poltroons Who Enable Them

Post Author: Omnipotent Poobah
Dems refused to appropriate money to close Guantanamo yesterday because they wanted a better "plan" - a double dog dare you acquiescence to Republican whining about the dangers of big bad terrorists locked up in pitifully weak prisons in - OMIGOD! HIDE THE WOMEN FOLK! - America.

Read The Full Article:
http://leftword.blogdig.net/archives/articles/May2009/21/Big_Fat_Cowards_and_the_
Poltroons_Who_Enable_Them.html

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

C&L Book Chat: Bloggers On The Bus with Eric
Boehlert

It's a brave new world. More than thirty-five years ago, Timothy Crouse wrote the seminal Boys On The Bus, detailing for the first time how the press--specifically types like Robert Novak and David Broder, among others--operated as a kind of hive mind, which Crouse coined as "pack journalism":

(R)ight at the outset Crouse identifies the "womblike conditions" of the bus and/or plane as giving rise to "the notorious phenomenon called 'pack journalism,' " and goes on: "They all fed off the same pool report, the same daily handout, the same speech by the candidate; the whole pack was isolated in the same mobile village. After a while, they began to believe the same rumors, subscribe to the same theories, and write the same stories."

At a precociously early age, Crouse understood some essential but little-known truths about journalists and journalism: that journalists are deathly afraid of being "wrong" and thus tend to stay within parameters set by the pack; that journalists want "to be on the Winner's Bus" because "a campaign reporter's career is linked to the fortunes of his candidate" and they don't "like to dwell on signs that their Winner [is] losing, any more than a soup manufacturer likes to admit that there is botulism in the vichyssoise"; that "journalism is probably the slowest-moving, most tradition-bound profession in America," refusing "to budge until it is shoved into the future by some irresistible external force."

Well, look out, boys, because as Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert chronicles in his new book, Bloggers on the Bus, there is a whole new group of people on that bus, and they won't be swayed by the hive mind of the old media. In fact, they thrive on being the outsider. And to the horror and consternation of those boys so comfortably entrenched within the Beltway Bubble, these upstarts are actually grabbing their audiences....and doing their job better than the old guard.

The liberal blogosphere was birthed from the outrage of the offenses of the Bush administration and the search for sanity amid the crazy-making and incestuous relationship between the White House and the press corps. Vastly varied backgrounds and unlikely histories coalesced into a formidable force that not only cowered the administration and Congress at times, but helped carry our first African-American president into office. But not without some bumps along the way.

For every triumph like getting a clearly shaken Chris Matthews to apologize for his misogynistic statements about Hillary Clinton, or a nervous John McCain to refuse the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, or empowering Sen. Christopher Dodd to agree to filibuster retroactive immunity in the FISA bill, we've had lows like the intense bifurcation of the blogosphere over the Democratic Primary, and the disappointing arm's-length distance the Obama White House has kept his liberal supporters.

During this time, we've developed a brand new roster of go-to people for information: John Amato, Digby, Susie Madrak, Arianna Huffington, Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, Josh Marshall, Howie Klein, Marcy Wheeler, all of whom play prominent roles in Bloggers on the Bus (is it at this time that I mention the glaring omission of my work from Bloggers on the Bus? ;-P) We've adapted our approaches and focus, we've spent hours pouring over arcane and wonky reports, we've connected dots between different sources and we've uncovered a narrative that in drips and drops has been proven correct.

In Bloggers on the Bus, Eric Boehlert has talked to these new guards and chronicled the liberal blogosphere's growing pains and victories. As someone who was right in the middle of all this, blogging my little heart out, it's fascinating to read a bird's-eye view accounting of everything that was happening. Eric is here to talk about his book and take your questions.

Please join me in welcoming Eric to C&L.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Senate, NPR Torture Reports Both Include Alberto
Gonzales

NPR's report placed Abu Gonzales at the center of the decision to torture Abu Zubaydah in the spring of 2002.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/05/21/dr-doooom-is-in-the-room/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Cheney: Even Arguing About Torture is Helping
Terrorists

Here's maybe the most radical argument of an extremely radical speech:

And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

In other words, the very act of debating torture, or the process by which we try detainees, is encouraging terrorists to strike. The implication, of course, is that dissent of any kind is dangerous.

That's something that Cheney and other Bushies have suggested before, of course. But rarely do you see it stated so bluntly.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Mano-a-Mano

It was almost like an episode from Bloggingheads.tv. On the one side was President Obama speaking on national security in a measured and statesmanlike way. On the other side was former vice-president Dick Cheney trying to speak on national security in a measured and statesmanlike way.

It wasn't even close. Obama deftly wove his own personal saga and faith in American values with its future. His indictment of the Bush administration wasn't something that Obama wanted to deliver--as he made it clear, he wants to move on. Cheney's campaign to hail his own record forced Obama to recount, once more, why it was that the Bush administration besmirched America's Constitution, why "enhanced interrogation" didn't enhance American security but directly jeopardized it.

Once again, Cheney, by contrast, offered a deceptively consoling vision of an America that can't lose its moral bearings because any measures that are deemed necessary to protect it are, by definition, just and righteous. Why is anyone even listening to him? The failure of the Bush administration's foreign policy has been patently obvious--a morass in Iraq, a resurgent insurgency in Afghanistan and Pakistan--note that Obama did not include Iraq as part of the struggle against terrorism--and the collapse of American standing around the globe.

But since even Democratic Senators seem to be cowering before the idea of shuttering Guantanamo, it's worth briefly examining Cheney's modus operandi once again. In his speech at the American Enterprise, Cheney deployed a number of familiar tactics.

First, he revived the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein was working hand-in-glove with al-Qaeda: "We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."

Second, he depicted the Democrats as woefully out of touch with reality, trapped in a law enforcement approach when it comes to national security: "You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come."

But as Obama pointed out, the Bush administration didn't really have a strategy, but an ad hoc policy towards prosecuting terrorists. Furthermore, Obama has not, and did not, say that 9/11 was an isolated event. In fact, he courageously noted that he cannot promise that another attack will never take place. But he also made it clear that stopping terrorism is his number one priority. Does that sound like someone who is asleep at the switch? Like a president, who, when listening to a CIA briefer warning about a looming al-Qaeda attack, says, "All right. You've covered your ass now."

Third, Cheney claimed, "Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda." But what operatives and persons inside the United States did this program ever expose?

Fourth, Cheney made it sound as though the Bush administration never embraced torture. The problem was confined to a few low-level, rogue guards: "At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men."

Fifth, Cheney ridiculed the notion that the Bush administration's tactics boomeranged: "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, "We brought it on ourselves."

The reference to the "left" is a revealing slip. Cheney began his speech by presenting himself as a simple, plainspoken fellow who had no office to seek, no grudges to settle. But by the end, his mask slipped and the culture warrior appeared. His war isn't against terrorism. It's against Obama.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Cheney On Torture: Misinformation And Straw Men

Here are some of the key excerpts from the part of Cheney's speech where he addresses torture. There are some obvious problems with all of them.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission."

But that's exactly the point of a Truth Commission. Done right, we'd find out, in a comprehensive, depoliticized context, exactly what we learned through torture, as well as other methods, and what the value of those pieces of information was. We'd also learn who was involved in the program, at each level. All this would enable us to better set policy going forward. How does this translate into a desire to know what was learned from terrorists?

And:

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed - the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

No one has argued that KSM is anything other than a hardened and brutal terrorist. What the murder of Daniel Pearl has to do with the issue of whether waterboarding KSM was either effective or morally justifiable is unclear.

And:

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

This opinion flies in the face of essentially all the available evidence about how US military interrogation techniques migrated to Abu Ghraib -- including the assessment of the former top commander of US ground forces in Iraq.

And:

From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

That seems like Cheney's oblique effort to push back against the recent spate of evidence
that the program was used in part to find intel that would bolster the case for the war in Iraq. It's a documented fact that al-Libbi, who was waterboarded, provided information -- later shown to be false -- that was cited by both President Bush and Colin Powell as evidence that Saddam Hussein was working with al Qaeda in developing chemical weapons. Libbi's false information led us to war in Iraq.

And:

[T]o call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims.

Again, it's unclear who's suggesting that people who are waterboarded are necessarily "innocent." This is the strawiest of straw men.

More soon....

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!