Bush’s demagoguery knows no bounds

October 23, 2007

Earlier this month, the NYT had a front-page blockbuster, highlighting secret legal opinions from the Bush administration, which endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.” After insisting publicly that “torture is abhorrent,” administration officials “provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics,” including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures.

At a press conference last week, the president tried to dodge the issue, saying he defines torture as “whatever the law says,” but today, Bush addressed the issue head on in a speech to the National Defense University in DC.

Even by the president’s standards, this was remarkable.

“In this new war, the enemy conspires in secret — and often the only source of information on what the terrorists are planning is the terrorists themselves. So we established a program at the Central Intelligence Agency to question key terrorist leaders and operatives captured in the war on terror. This program has produced critical intelligence that has helped us stop a number of attacks — including a plot to strike the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi, a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles, California, or a plot to fly passenger planes into Heathrow Airport and buildings into downtown London.

“Despite the record of success, and despite the fact that our professionals use lawful techniques, the CIA program has come under renewed criticism in recent weeks. Those who oppose this vital tool in the war on terror need to answer a simple question: Which of the attacks I have just described would they prefer we had not stopped?”

Seriously? To question whether the United States government is torturing people, outside the law and treaties to which we are a part, is necessarily to “prefer” that terrorists execute successful attacks?

I suppose it’s possible that Bush has been this shamelessly demagogic before, but not in a while.

Notice, of course, that Bush is smearing “those who oppose this vital tool.” And what tool might that be? A program that utilizes certain interrogation techniques. Which ones? We don’t know for sure, but we’re supposed to trust the president that they’re not torture. After all, he says so.

But I still can’t get over the demagoguery itself. I wonder what would happen if Democratic leaders pointed to a number of kids who benefited from S-CHIP, and said, “Despite the record of success with this program, and despite the fact that medical professionals and health officials endorse the program, the S-CHIP has come under renewed criticism in recent weeks. The president’s policy would leave some children behind. Those who oppose this vital expansion need to answer a simple question: Which of the low-income children would Republicans prefer not get medical care?”

Today’s Bush pronouncement was no less subtle. To question “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency” is to support terrorism. Breathtaking.

As for the details, Bush mentioned five specific terrorist plots that were allegedly prevented thanks to certain undefined “techniques” used against detainees. But therein lies the rub: on several occasions, Bush has highlighted a list of thwarted terrorist plots that he claims to have prevented. None of the examples has withstood scrutiny.

Indeed, Bush pointed to a planned attack on the Library Tower today, but we already know he’s wildly exaggerated this claim before.

Pointing to today’s list, Dan Froomkin asks, “Which of those attacks was more than a fantasy? And which would not have been stopped with more humane and arguably more effective interrogation techniques?”

Regrettably, the White House won’t, or can’t, say.

This is what is known as “desperation” – when you know you’re going down, you grab anything you can find.

glub… glub… glub…

445 days to go!

  • I wish the bastard would undergo some of his own medicine dealing with questions about his own crimes. Bullies are always cowards, and he is a cur. The congress is equally disgusting for not throwing them out of office as the constitution (and common sense) dictates.

  • “I wonder what would happen if Democratic leaders pointed to a number of kids who benefited from S-CHIP…”

    Alas, we’ll never know. I am convinced we’ll never see such a breath-takingly obvious question come out of the mouth of a Democratic Rep or Senator… perhaps not soon, perhaps not ever again. We need the Democrats in Congress to STAND UP and call BULLSHIT when they see it. I haven’t seen my freshman Rep do that yet (Mitchell, AZ-5). And I’m sure as hell not going to see it from my two bat-shit crazy senators Kyl and McCain.

    We can only go up in ’08. The question is how far will we climb?

  • I wonder what would happen if Democratic leaders pointed to a number of kids who benefited from S-CHIP, and said, “Despite the record of success with this program, and despite the fact that medical professionals and health officials endorse the program, the S-CHIP has come under renewed criticism in recent weeks. The president’s policy would leave some children [untreated]. Those who oppose this vital expansion need to answer a simple question: Which of the low-income children would Republicans prefer [had died]?”

    I, too, wonder what would happen if Democratic leaders said this. Even more, I wonder why they don’t.

    The Republicans win these types of arguments because they are willing to play extreme hardball. Dems are not. And I am not saying we should lie like a rug (optimistic or not) like the shameless President does. The beauty of the SCHIP argument above is that it is much more grounded in truth than the President’s terror attack argument. Still, we didn’t even come close to doing this.

    You can lead through people respecting you or people fearing you. Leading through the respect and admiration of others is clearly the better, more productive approach. But at any given moment, people will react more strongly to their fears than their admiration. And the Republicans out fearmonger us day in and day out.

    Lets parade out a bunch of ailing grandparents and say “Every Republican candidate in a debate last Sunday backed a plan to gut Social Security as we know it. But that income has helped provide food, shelter and medicine for these great citizens. Which of them do the Republicans want to see suffer a slow, agonizing death so the rich can continue to shelter most of their money from Social Security obligations?”

  • Almost daily, I say that nothing he does surprizes me anymore. Then he surprizes me. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Dems we elected continue to cave in. He, and the other Republican candidates keep telling us that this threat is the most serious this country has ever faced. The speak as though we will wake up someday soon and all be islamic in government and religion. And, no one contests that assertion. WTF! They have few numbers, no country, and no army. How exactly are they going to destroy us and our way of life?

  • Torture dehumanizes everyone involved. I hope the international courts hold this administration accountable. Lord knows the Democrats in office won’t.

  • “To question terrorism is to support terrorism.”
    ……………………………………………………George W. Bush.

    Only in Bushylvania could a head-of-state make such an foundationally-stupid comment as this. “Most aggressive methods” denote torture. “Torture” denotes a form of terrorism. End of story.

    And—I need to go back and see if there’s a soundclip to that speech—especially the part about “flying…buildings into downtown London.”

  • The Dems don’t seem to want to play heads up ball, let alone hardball. Their obsession with playing fair has cost the American people their very freedom, and I too wonder when if ever these so called leaders will call these bullies on their crimes.

  • The biggest hooy out there right now is the canard that Mr. Bush is simply using his rightful authority as Commander-in-Chief. This Commander-in-Chief argument is invalid, or did I miss a formal declaration of war made by the legislative branch. Co-opting our Constitution by using a resolution regarding the need to meet terror where it presents itself is what we are witnessing right now.

    Mr. Bush is a fear mongerer, and he will continue to push his authoritarian vision upon us if we continue to let him. I agree with a more relevant president in that I fear nothing but fear itself. As such, I am aghast at how we are allowing Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to do what they insist on doing – commiting aggressive war against other sovereign nations. My view is that Mr. Cheney has had so many life-threatening experiences, he is approaching the Middle East with wreckless abandon. Mr. Bush is merely facilitating the end times as his evangelical beliefs will allow. In both cases, Americans would be so much better off moving in completely different directions. Now is the time we need a Give-’em-Hell-Harry to combat the koolaid drinking residents of the WH. -Kevo

  • These cretins are so deranged they have to make themselves believe what they are saying in order to justify what they have been doing. The shame that covers this nation will never leave until Bush/Cheney are in prison. How can our elected leaders still, to this day, with all the horrors being committed by this administration, allow this to continue, and still sleep at night. Look at what the threat of terrorism has made us allow this administration to do to our once great nation. We are filled with fear, despair and shame and our elected leaders will not stand up for us to stop it, so we are forced to just watch the horror continue.

    Oh Lente lente currite noctus equii (slowly, slowly, move the horses of the night)

  • The WH.gov video does, indeed, note that King Koolaid claims terroists are plotting to “fly…buildings into downtown London.”

    How DOES one “fly a building?” And given the crowded London environment, where would one ever find the room to fly the damned thing?

  • In this new war, the enemy conspires in secret — and often the only source of information on what the terrorists are planning is the terrorists themselves

    WTF? Does he really mean that for the last 10,000 years war planning has been conducted in public? The Enemy was always gracious enough to let us know what they were going to do? How’d we ever lose a war?

    The depths of his mendacity have yet to be full plumbed.

  • Pretty good post. The background that the claims to have used torture to prevent attacks is useful (one thinks of the CIA official who recenlty lies to congress about using FISA eavesdropping intelligence to prevent attacks) and I guess I see what you’re saying about the President’s implictly saying “you’re preferring torture”– it’s not that we don’t want to prevent attacks, but we want to use other means than torture to find the information we need to prevent attacks. That’s a point the Republicans should mark well and consider before they say anything about our stance on torture.

  • ***btw Steve*** I wonder if the veto of the S-CHIP bill was really a back door plan to get his war funding money approved. How could the dems deny war appropriations if the SCHIP measure is attached to it? I sure hope this isn’t what happens…choosing between health care for poor children and continued war funding. There’s no low limit Bush would not stoop to keep the war profiteering going. God, please no…dead soldiers vs healthy children.

    The sixth step in the rule of fascism is to introduce a para military force and empower them.
    Blackwater comes to America with non-Americans filling their ranks ready to do what our leader bids. It has already happened. What good is all your “policy-making “plans now Pelosi?

  • “We have to be incredibly thoughtful about the potential of in fact getting into a conflict with a third country in that part of the world.”

    Sorry, dude, this is America. We don’t do thoughtful.

  • Too bad someone didn’t –and probably never will — ask Bush why those **cough**lawful**cough** techniques didn’t stop someone from mailing anthrax around the country, nor have they led to the capture of those responsible.

    It’s also pathetic that the media will ignore the fact that hundreds of folks the Bush gang thought were terrorists, were held without charges and access to legal counsel, and were more than likely tortured, were later determined completely innocent and released.

    But I guess the notion of safety is much more important to these folks than, you know, having policies and tactics that actually do keep us safe.

  • A typo from me:

    The background that the claims to have used torture to prevent attacks is useful

    This should have been something like “the background you provide (that the claims to have used torture to prevent attacks is flimsy) is useful,” but I was unfortunately stepping on my own feet…

    I think this post would have been better if you had included more “mini-thesis statements” though. It’s the “tell them what you’re going to tell them” part of that old hackneyed formula of “everyman” rhetoric (1. Tell them what you’re going to tell them; 2. Tell it to them; 3. Tell them what it was you just told them.). You do a little too much of the liberal style of giving people evidence without telling them what you think it means, and I think this is what’s causing the feeling I have about a lot of your posts that you should have put certain information “more up front.” Sometimes I read a post of yous and it sounds like you’re just repeating what the Republicans said, and then gasping at it- and to some (most notably the Republicans) that can saound appalling. I just think this post is a lot stronger and it will be easier for people to notive and remember the stronger points if you just focus on: 1) The stories that torture-obtained information stopped terrorist plots are actually hoaxes, and 2) Of course liberals aren’t demanding that we suffer terrorist attacks so that captured suspects who could provide information we could use to stop the attacks don’t suffer torture; rather we want people to focus on developing and using ways of gaining the same information or of otherwise preventing the terrorist attacks, but that avoid the use of torture to do so.

  • I don’t know. Which of the “attacks” can we believe you did anything about? President Bush, you are, as my Father would have said, full of sh*t as a Christmas goose. None of your words are worth believing.

  • I wonder what would happen if Democratic leaders [actually played hardball]”

    I’ll tell you what would happen. Their approval numbers would skyrocket.

    But they won’t, because…

    THEY SUCK.

    • Comments are closed.