Comments on: Dick’s “Presidential-Level” Torture Decision

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 13 May 2009 04:00:44 +0000

I don’t think I agree with you, but I would say it sounds as if someone else might have dreamt it up or wrote up an order or something and ran it by Bush to get a signature to make it an official Presidential order.

If that’s what you meant, then yes, it could’ve been that kind of agreement.

In some offices you have to have something on paper and then “run it by” a bunch of people for signatures or initials before it can be executed. This process doesn’t specify where it originated.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 13 May 2009 03:49:12 +0000

There is a greater democracy of information for sure. Nowadays you can float an idea and it’s around the world in a one second. It’s harder for the terrists to hide their deals behind closed doors. Just think, it wasn’t two decades ago that we were still in the dark. That’s a lot of progress very quickly. Does my age show that I don’t consider two decades a tremendously long time? But, I don’t let it get me down. I just have to go with the flow and not fight it, just maintain my balance. Somehow I don’t think Bush & co can do that. They’re more of a ’stick a firecracker up yer butt and light it & run’ kinda crowd. Responsibility isn’t really in their vocabulary.

By: parsnip

parsnip — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:31:59 +0000

Sue Ann Arrigo describes a similar situation, of Cheney getting Bush to authorize use of DU in Iraq, in this recent post at Al Martin’s Conspiracy Planet. She sounds almost over the edge and not believable unless one compares her accounts to the dribbling-out of documentary evidence and Cheney’s own revelations during his recent public appearances.

It’s worth reading through her voluminous earlier writings, starting here and here, with much more at Conspiracy Planet and downloadable from mediafire as PDFs or .docs through ’Case 29’. [These can be found by Googling ”Sue Ann Arrigo” + ”Case XX”, where XX = 19, 20, 21, 22B, 22C, 22D, 23, 24A, 24B, 24C, 24D, 24E, 25A, 25B, 25C, 26, 27, 28, 29.] She has also compiled a file which she has sent to the Spanish Judge Garzon.

Despite her seemingly over-the-top narratives, I tend to believe her. But, then, I suppose it’s also possible that she’s been put out there to be discredited, much like the Texas Air National Guard document used to take down Dan Rather. The content of the document was true, but the provenance of the copy of the document Dan Rather had was questionable.

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:27:27 +0000

The question for Dick is how does he define “basically”

As Ed said “take it to the Judge”

By: PPDCUS

PPDCUS — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:29:08 +0000

Nothing says enduring legacy for Cheney/Bush quite like — NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....84044.html

By: KayInMaine

KayInMaine — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:01:37 +0000

Would someone please trip Cheney as he walks by and then arrest him please? Thank you.

By: timtimes

timtimes — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:41:47 +0000

That’s my take as well. Posted yesterday on my TPM muckracker blog:

Watched just a wee bit (the new Star Trek rocks…) of the Cheney confession from Sunday TV. He’s a kind of antiporn. The more you see of him, the less you want to see more of him. Creepy, and so not like porn.

Cheney didn’t throw Bush under the bus. From what I heard, Bush could use this interview against Cheney in the war crimes trials. Cheney veered around the question of Bush’s actual knowledge of what Cheney was doing in a way that makes me think that he played the simpleton Bush for the fool and incompetent that he is/was. Bush might honestly not have been aware of the worst of it at the time it was being done. Those early lies about the use of torture might have been honest from his perspective. Not saying he didn’t think detainees were getting “roughed-up good Mr. Preznet” but early on, he might not have known?!?

Full:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme.....i-porn.php

Enjoy.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 12 May 2009 23:08:30 +0000

Far as i can tell, the two of you are on about the same page and are arguing out of frustration. It IS frustrating; but the alternative is to give up and nobody here is doing that. So carry on!

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:50:50 +0000

If John Ashcroft had, while drugged out and recovering from major surgery, has signed off on the Domestic Spying authorization at the behest of the White House…would that have meant he “basically authorized” it?

Maybe they got Bush to sign it while they plied him with alcohol.

“Yeah, the drunk signed off on this, although we dosed him with booze and drugs and lies about the danger of Al Qaida taking over the country.”

By: rapt

rapt — Tue, 12 May 2009 22:36:04 +0000

Beg to differ.

You know very well that I am not throwing up my hands, or lending support. How defensive can you get? Please do not rewrite my comment to match your fantasies phred.

I was referring in part to the long period when the Plame affair was in the process of being “adjudicated” and was the prime subject at FDL. Many of the commenters there seemed to agree that the hammer of justice was about to swing at any moment, because the evidence was undeniable - everybody could see it, except for the part kept secret. What happened? All the perps including Libby walked. Well OK, the Libster was convicted of perjury eventually - after all the delaying tactics had been used up, but then….he too walked didn’t he.

Was it ever determined what more serious crimes, what other perps, like Addington and the VP, were allowed to slide by unindicted? No. I base my pessimism on this precedent. And yes it is very evident that Cheney has bosses and handlers further up the chain; they are careful to be never identified; that is their game.