“Monumentally-stupid” is how we would describe President Barack Obama’s decision to take his predecessor’s failed economic interventionist policies and put them on steroids.
It didn’t work during the Great (Government-Inspired) Depression, nor is it going to work today.
But that macro-stupidity was coupled yesterday with a glaringly dumb decision to piss off the Central Intelligence Agency.
From Radio Free Europe (not the R.E.M. song):
Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama approved the release of legal government memos written during George W. Bush’s presidency that approved the use of interrogation techniques by the CIA that many consider a form of torture, including waterboarding.
The release of those secret memos was opposed by some CIA employees, who felt it was a betrayal of their efforts to protect their country.
Of course, the article goes on to say that Obama was greeted by CIA employees with “enthusiastic cheers.”
Right. Maybe the secretaries, interns and janitors.
We have no doubt that the people who actually make decisions at the CIA were not enthusiastically greeting Obama, because they’re privately pissed as hell at him for caving to the ACLU.
Pissing off the CIA is more than just stupid, it is borderline self-loathing … to say nothing of hazardous to your health.
Just ask JFK. Or his brother, for that matter.
Oh right …
Anyway, we sincerely hope that no ill befalls Obama over this.
Sure, we think he’s a hypocrite commie who is the absolute worst thing to ever happen to this nation, but that doesn’t mean he should get his head splattered.
Last time we checked, generational theft was bad, but not yet a capital offense.
By Snead April 21, 2009 at 11:35 am
“President Obama was greeted in yesterday’s visit to the CIA by surprisingly thunderous applause from CIA staffers.
For CIA staff, his speech did not disappoint. The opening notes seemed designed to convey one particular message: “I GET IT.” What he “gets” is that the CIA, particularly its field officers, often operate in difficult and dangerous conditions to undertake operations in defense of the nation, and usually receive little thanks from either official Washington or the America public. After the CIA staff basked in the unaccustomed praise, Obama segued into one of the two main themes: he would not prosecute CIA officers for using harsh tactics authorized by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Council (OLC).
Obama’s speech demonstrated to CIA staffers that he understands a fundamental but little-discussed truth about harsh interrogations, extraordinary rendition, and other sticky situations in which the CIA has found itself: Major new CIA operations and policy shifts, such as use of harsh interrogations, require a direct authorization from the President known as a Presidential Finding, and matching policy guidance, which in this case was provided by the OLC. He has taken the very sensible (to CIA officers, at least) stance that he is not going to hold the CIA responsible for the use of harsh tactics any more than he would bring soldiers up on charges for invading Iraq. The speech shows that he has embraced a truth long absent from Washington: the buck stops at the desk of the President, not with those who carry out the President’s orders.
The second major theme of the speech was to haul the issue of the OLC memos out into the daylight and definitively quash them. For my money, the President sent exactly the right message. By explicitly saying to both the CIA and the world that such tactics will no longer be used, he has done the Agency a favor. It helps put a dark and unwelcome chapter in the Agency’s history to rest, allowing it to move on and get on with the Agency’s real business: collecting human intelligence and providing top-quality analysis.”
-Arthur Keller
WMD/Terrorism Analyst, Writer, media consultant, former Case Officer in the Directorate of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency
By T4 April 21, 2009 at 11:50 am
Served…
By RON PAUL April 21, 2009 at 11:58 am
This would not be a problem if we where not in other peoples countries for no reason…READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!
By roofus April 21, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Who cares if the guy who planned the 9/11 attacks was water-boarded 166 plus times? Why doesn’t Obama ask the 3,000+ families of 9/11 VICTIMS if THEY think water-boarding is harsh?
That’s right. The only terrorists now or potential terrorists are Christian veterans who oppose abortion and homosexual marriage, according to Obama’s DHS chief.
No wonder Obama fist-pumps Chavez and bows down to King Abdullah, while ordering the covering up of a cross at a Catholic university.
By Huh? April 21, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The CIA and the State Department are full of left leaning ivy league lunatics. So, I don’t doubt that they cheered. They are notorious for picking the wrong side, refusing to follow executive policy, and making the rules as they go along. As a former military officer, I saw first hand the damage those agencies have wrought, and often times by working their own left wing agenda, regardless of what Adminstration is in office. Nothing like a good Yale education, to be completely out of touch with reality.
By Mike April 21, 2009 at 1:07 pm
One mistake that some folks make is to think of the Agency as a monolithic, single-sided entity. There are several worlds at work within that monster, each with their own values and agenda. “Huh?” was right when he said that the company and State are full of left-leaning types. What most folks envision when they think of the traditional “CIA spy” is actually the “case officer,” and tons of these guys and gals are, in fact, libs from Ivy League schools. The folks in the paramilitary branches of the CIA, however, are (generally) from military and law enforcement backgrounds, and are tasked with the dirty work. You can guess where their heads are at…
By Pat Hendrix April 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm
On all points, this may go down as the worst post ever on fits, a high benchmark.
First, the facts of the Great Depression are easily found on the internets. It was a huge success by any measure. The “(Government-Inspired) Depression” began with a Republican president and Congress with the crash of the market, a run of the banks, the loss of the personal income, the dust bowl and Smoot Harley (the one “government inspired” contributor). From 1929 to 1933, before the New Deal, the unemployment was 25%, 20% of banks had failed, personal income dropped from 90 billion to 50 billion and industrial output was halved. New deal begins: economy grows by 10.8% in 1934, 8.9% in 1935, 13% in 1936 and 5.1% in 1937. There is a sharp downturn in 1938, the same year the New Deal was drastically cut back because of deficits. By 1939, the economy was growing again. Nevertheless, the unemployment was below 10 percent by 1937, the stock market and industrial output had also recovered. Those are facts.
Second, the rank and file at the CIA hated the Bush Administration, which set up an entirely new “intelligence” operation within the Pentagon. This propaganda unit, and there is no other way to describe it, invented facts from whole cloth. The administration also waged a war against the CIA from the confines of the Wall Street Journal and other rightwing echo chambers. Obama was a welcome change.
And roofus, we have a standard in this country for not using torture. We’re the United States – we don’t do it – read the Army Field Manual. You know who used water boarding: The Chinese, North Koreans, the Germans and the Spaniards during the Inquisition. Aside from the morale aspects, it creates false leads. Read up on the wasted effort expended after water boarding Abu Zubaida.
By cerius April 21, 2009 at 4:04 pm
The Army Field Manual doesn’t address jihadis with suicide vests on a mission from allah…
Torture has been used in all wars… take your head out of the sand, man
(Even John Wilkes Booth was tortured for hours by Union forces with burning hot coals…)
By jan blotchsky April 21, 2009 at 6:32 pm
You are an idiot Pat. You always are. Yes (slobbering with face-sucking sounds), “Obama is a welcome change.” Bullcrap.
Yes, you are safer Pat because someone waterboarded someone so you could continue to try to destroy the nation that gave you opportunities to grow up to be such an ass. Sorry, a run-on I know, but people like you tend to create meaningful monologues.
By The Right April 21, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I think Obama is in way over his head here. He obviously has no understanding of the necessity of the CIA and techniques to extract inforamtion. I think he is in way over his head!
By Old Bike Dude April 21, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Hey jan, what say you stop cornholing roofus long enough to prove your idiotic post. Turn off the AM and wise up pup.
By RON PAUL April 21, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Again to all of you!!!!!! If we where not in other peoples countries for a unconstitutional war..This would not be a problem.READ THE CONSTITUTION!!!
By roofus April 21, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Geriatic Biker,
Way to keep it classy! The CIA now reports that aggressive “interrogation techniques” prevented a 9/11 style mass-murder attack on LA in 2005.
So what should we do when we capture a jihadi with a car-load of suicide vests and dirty bomb components? Put him on the DNC pay-roll and celebrate his “diversity”?
I suppose it will take a couple hundred thousand American deaths before some of you Dems realize the threat of Islamofascism. You can’t blame Bush for everything. After all, 9/11 was planned during BILL CLINTON’S presidency.
By jan blotchsky April 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm
How sweet of you to bring up farming OBD! And here I was thinking you were just a typical liberal egoist, what a silly girl (I mean, Pup) I am! Fiddledeedee, I’ll just turn off my (am) radio, and fan myself by the big Obama statue in the front yard, my it’s hot today.
You guys are hysterical. Disgusting yet hysterical. I know how you must despise Dick Cheney, with him being the devil and everything, but wouldn’t it be interesting to find out how many terrorist attacks were actually prevented with waterboarding. That is, if Obama will allow the release of the CIA records indicating this. I really don’t think a desire to protect the American people by scaring the living holy hell out of a terrorist is offensive; nor does it require a defense. Would you like some sweet tea, you gross old man?
By Mike April 21, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Pat,
Not bickering with you on the torture point at all, but I can assure the “rank and file” didn’t hate Bush or his administration. A certain, select minority were definitely rankled when he had the nerve to imply that as the President of the United States he maintained executive control over policy and directives, but they were NOT the rank and file, or anything close to a majority. They were the top of the food chain, which at Langley is predominantly silver-spoon Ivy Leaguers of the old entitlement, “we’re smarter than you so hush” mindset. The rank and file folks out in the weeds knew exactly what Bush was trying to do and why, even if we didn’t necessarily agree with every decision he made.
Again, a minor clarification- not arguing the torture point…
By Pat Hendrix April 22, 2009 at 8:36 am
jan blotchsky,
We didn’t use torture during WWII. Was there less at stake during that war? Our freedom less threatened? We didn’t use torture during the Cold War? Was there less at stake? Cerius has to go back to federal troops torturing the conspirators in Lincoln’s killing (Booth was killed with a shot to the head and never tortured) to find a instance where our nation used torture. What does that tell you? Besides, torture (ask John McCain) is not a reliable source of intelligence. Stop watching 24 and grow up. (PS: I’ve never been to a blog where people use the world “idiot” with such frequency. It’s silly)
In any event, the ends do not justify the means, the ends here are not even known. We wear the white hats – we’re the good guys.
And Jane and Mike, let me assure you, Obama was a welcome change at the CIA. The suggestion is that if the room had been full of swaggering field officers it would have been less welcoming (according to fits with murderous designs) of the president. I doubt it. If you were an operative in Central Asia and were afforded more money, men and resources to carry out an enhanced mission with presidential commitment, rather than pouring them into Iraq, you might like the idea of Obama in the White House.
Then again the fact he has promised to depoliticise the CIA might be enough, too.
By cerius April 22, 2009 at 9:55 am
Pat,
You are being very “silly.” What is torture? Is aggressive interrogation using water boarding torture? I’m sure that there are a variety of opinions. I don’t care. I want my family safe. If squirting water up a terrorist’s nose gives valuable information that will prevent massive loss of innocent life, then go for it! Khalid Shiek Mohammad (sp?) chirped like a birdie with mere seconds of water boarding, according to published CIA reports. Abu Zu.. did not respond to the technique, reportedly. I’m not a trained interrogator, but it’s obvious not all interrogation techniques are equally effective. I’m certainly not for our guys randoming chopping off fingers like the bad guys, but water boarding is non-lethal and does not cause any permanent physiological sequelae.
Though I’m sure you won’t find it recording in any lofty text book, aggressive interrogation techniques have always been employed by our military. The guys that usually engage in that line of work aren’t very snarky or chatty by nature, so don’t expect a tell-all expose anytime soon.
Don’t forget, with Islamofascism, we’re fighting an enemy who kills innocent, un-armed civilians enmasse. This is an enemy who doesn’t abide by Geneva convention protocol and engages in routine asymmetic warfare techniques.
I’ve read that John Wilkes Booth was agonizingly tortured by union troops using hot coals prior to his eventual murder by gunshot. Neither you nor I were present, Pat, so neither of us knows what actually took place.
By Pat Hendrix April 22, 2009 at 10:21 am
First, the details of Booth’s death are not a mystery.
Second, waterboarding is considered torture by the United States of America. This is not a guess, but a demonstrable fact. The Army Field Manual is explicit and so are our treaty obligations. This a technique used against Americans during the Korean War by the Chinese and North Koreans. It was considered torture then, it’s torture now.
Third, the value of intelligence derived from torture is spotty at best. This isn’t my opinion. but the opinion of seasoned intelligence experts. Abu Zubaida wasn’t immune, he just told them anything they wanted to hear. Here’s a snippet about the drive to produce the magical link between terrorists and Iraq:
“By late 2001, counterterrorism officials were becoming frustrated by the paucity of useful leads coming from interrogations — a meager showing that was linked, according to one Army major, to interrogators’ insistence on “establishing a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq,” the report said.”
Now juxtapose that agasinst this:
“Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice….
The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment.”
http://italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2003_06/alia/A3062613.htm
G.W. Bush
June 26, 2003
By cerius April 22, 2009 at 11:22 am
So pat, are you postulating that waterboarding is no different than rape, burning and electric shock? Surely you jest, man!
By roofus April 22, 2009 at 11:33 am
Pat,
I suppose Sherman didn’t target civilian population centers during the civil war either? Nah,read the army manual.. Columbia and Atlanta weren’t burned by the union troops, folks, it was simultaneously lighting strikes!
By Pat Hendrix April 22, 2009 at 1:05 pm
No, I wasn’t aware that rape, burning and electric shock ecompassed the totality of torture techniques. By that logic, pulling out toe nails and beatings with electrical cords is not torture. Flawless logic.
Roofus,
Not sure where that came from. Was there a point? I’m sort of doubting the army manual from 1864 and today look alike, but maybe you know different.
By UpYers April 22, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Please change the headline to Obama pisses ON the CIA.