Seven years ago today:

Presenter: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz   May 31, 2003

Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz Interview with Michael Dwyer, Australian Broadcasting

….Q:  Just a couple of questions on Iraq.  I was just wondering as of today, where you consider the weapons of mass destruction to be and why the United Nations and weapons inspectors are still not being invited back into Iraq.

Wolfowitz:  Well on the second point, they’re certainly welcome to come back and in fact I believe we’ve made some arrangements already for the IAEA to come back to do some checking on sites that are known.  But bear in mind this regime had 12 years to develop very sophisticated methods of hiding things.  We have found those biological vans that the defector in Germany told us about.  They seem to be exactly what he said they would be.  And I would think that would pretty well corroborate the rest of his story which is they were for the production of biological weapons.

We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you’d have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you.  And that’s why we gave the UN inspectors authorities they never had before to interview people.

It’s quite significant I think that Saddam never allowed any of his people to be interviewed without tape recorders present or monitors present, and we now have our hands on some small number of those people, and I think eventually with information that we get from people who know about the programs, we’ll get to the bottom of what was there and what happened to it….

Over five years later:

Bush: My biggest regret is false intelligence on Iraq WMDs

“…The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” Bush said. “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein.”

But he declined to speculate on whether he would have gone to war if the intelligence had said Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction….

My biggest regret is that at the end of 2000 I had to ask myself the question, “Did I do enough?” And almost ten years later I continue to be painfully reminded of the answer.

Aiding Torture: Health Professionals’ Ethics and Human Rights Violations Demonstrated in the May 2004 CIA Inspector General’s Report

This 6-page white paper, published August 31, 2009, after the new release of the May 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report, shows that the extent to which American doctors and psychologists violated human rights and betrayed the ethical standards of their professions by designing, implementing, and legitimizing a worldwide torture program is worse than previously known.

A team of PHR doctors authored the white paper, which details how the CIA relied on medical expertise to rationalize and carry out abusive and unlawful interrogations. It also refers to aggregate collection of data on detainees’ reaction to interrogation methods. Physicians for Human Rights is concerned that this data collection and analysis may amount to human experimentation and calls for more investigation on this point. If confirmed, the development of a research protocol to assess and refine the use of the waterboard or other techniques would likely constitute a new, previously unknown category of ethical violations committed by CIA physicians and psychologists.

Those actions are illegal:

A Small Clique Of Legal Extremists…

…and a violation of professional ethical standards. The PHR white paper [pdf]:

Aiding Torture: Health Professionals’ Ethics and Human Rights Violations Revealed in the May 2004 CIA Inspector General’s Report

From the report:

…In essence, the lawyers were asked if the techniques constituted torture and they replied to the CIA that they only did so if the CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) informed them that the techniques reached the defined standard of pain. The OMS health professionals obligingly passed on through CIA channels their opinion that the pain was not in fact severe

In an egregious example of this circular process, one OLC memo concludes that waterboarding is not torture because “however frightening the experience may be, OMS personnel have informed us that the waterboard technique is not physically painful.” Scores of similar references to OMS medical judgments about pain and the safeguarding effects of medical monitoring appear throughout the memos. Although OMS did express some concern about some techniques, those objections were limited. Without the cooperation of health professionals in making these assessments, the OLC memos could not have reached the conclusions they did and could not have so easily justified torture…

What are we all now?

August 2008

August 2009 – something is missing.

Unfortunately, there are still a few others who don’t.

In Tucson, Arizona:

In New Mexico:

But there are a few more who do get it.

In New Mexico:

In Arizona:

Between Hondo and Ruidoso, New Mexico:

Do you think that Lincoln County, New Mexico republicans aren’t to happy with the sign and its somewhat distant irony?

Now I understand the previous eight years. The previous administration watched too much television.

One of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)

The stenographer holds forth on lame responses to presidential addresses:

…Last year, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius redefined “stiff” when she delivered the Democratic response. This year, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal placed a deep dent in his 2012 presidential express.

Why doesn’t it work? One big reason: You move from the energy of a vibrant president speaking to a joint session of Congress to a lone figure staring straight ahead and reading an often formulaic script…

[emphasis added]

Uh, even a year ago “vibrant” wasn’t an adjective anyone in politics was using to describe dubya.

Brett Penrose on things that have been trashed or lost in the Oval Office during the course of the previous eight years.

Didn’t dubya attempt to be tastelessly funny about what he did in the Oval Office a few years ago?

The difference from the past eight years is a significant and refreshing change. Remember this?:

Published on Wednesday, April 14, 2004 by Reuters

Bush: I’ve Made No Mistakes Since 9/11

by David Morgan

WASHINGTON – American President George Bush grimaced, sighed, rambled and chuckled under his breath on Tuesday, before saying he could not think of a single mistake he had made since the September 11 attacks….

On the other hand, President Obama (that has a nice ring to it) is candid:

“…Well, I, you know, I think this was a mistake. I think I screwed up. Uh, and, you know, I take responsibility for it. And we’re going to make sure we fix it so it doesn’t happen again.”

The first step in learning from your mistake is admitting that you made it. Then you attempt to not repeat the mistake. That is something that was (and still is) a congenital impossibility for dubya.

The former chief speechwriter for dubya sounds off in the paper:

The Washington Post

2,688 Days

By Marc A. Thiessen

Thursday, January 22, 2009; Page A17

…During the campaign, Obama described the techniques used to prevent these attacks as “torture.” He promised that if elected, he would “have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors.” If he follows through, he will effectively kill a program that stopped al-Qaeda from launching another Sept. 11-style attack. It was easy for Obama the candidate to criticize the CIA program. But as president, what will he do when the next senior al-Qaeda leader — with actionable intelligence on plots to strike our homeland — is captured and refuses to talk? Will the president allow the CIA to question this terrorist using enhanced interrogation techniques? If Obama refuses and our country is attacked, he will bear responsibility…

No, you putz, if America is attacked you and your ilk will bear responsibility because of your gross incompetence which has weakened the country over those “2,688 days”.

Apparently Thiessen has been watching far too many episodes of 24, waiting and hoping for that big writing break. Go. Read the whole thing. The comments in response are priceless.

From a declaration [pdf] recently filed in a habeas corpus petition on behalf a detainee by Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, former prosecutor at the Office of Military Commissions – Prosecution at Guantanamo:

…Furthermore, there was nothing about Mr. Jawad’s personal history to suggest that he would be targeted for abuse in the course of his interrogation sessions or his subsequent imprisonment…

…I later learned that Mr. Jawad had in fact been abused, both physically and mentally, at different times during his captivity, as I will detail below. Had I known of this abuse, I may very well have refrained from recommending the referral of charges…

…Likewise, at the time Mr. Jawad was charged we were not particularly focused or even much concerned about Mr. Jawad’s status as a juvenile…

…I reviewed a redacted copy of a report prepared by a Behavioral Science Consultation Team psychologist, who prepared an assessment of Mr. Jawad’s mental condition. The psychological assessment was not done to assist in identifying and treating any emotional or psychological disturbances Mr. Jawad might have been suffering from. It was instead conducted to assist the interrogators in extracting information from Mr. Jawad, even exploiting his mental vulnerabilities to do so. This rank betrayal of a supposed healer’s professional obligations toward a detainee entitled to humane treatment struck me as particularly despicable. From my perspective, this officer had employed his or her professional training and expertise in a profoundly unethical manner…

So much for “senior al-Qaeda leader”. Go. Read the whole thing.

As for all those torture advocates working in dubya’s administration?:

Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950.

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Obviously, this cluelessness is a republican trait: What color is the sky in their world?

I came across this Faux News Channel gem at “The Great Orange Satan” via a diary by IDrankWhat:

Former President George H.W. Bush said his son Jeb should run for president…

Spare us, please.

Though dubya has probably insured that ain’t gonna happen.

Via the Political Wire:

“It’s hard to tell, hard to imagine what it’s like to go from 100 miles an hour to 5. I’m going to want to build a policy institute at Southern Methodist, probably write a book. And beyond that, I’m open for suggestions.”

— President Bush, in the upcoming People magazine, on what he’s going to do after leaving the White House.

[emphasis added]

“…Alex, for $1200, ‘What is the world’s smallest building?'”

I do have a suggestion for what he can do with his book.