Six weeks later, we experienced a second terrorist attack, with the Anthrax letters.

Immediately afterward, Bush shifted the fight to Afghanistan and then, with no credible evidence of Saddam’s involvement or possession of WMDs, Iraq. Since then, an additional 4,336 (at least) Americans were killed by Islamic jihadis in Iraq (4654 total coalition members), and an officially acknowledged 37,512 wounded – many profoundly.

In addition, 807 Americans have been killed by jihadis in Afghanistan (177 through this year alone – already the highest annual account) and an additional 540 coalition deaths were recorded.

Also, has has been pointed out, all of the major al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attacks since 9/11 in Madrid, Bali, Jordan, London and around the world were committed after Bush/Cheney’s torture program. Why didn’t the torture reveal any of the plans for these attacks if it was, as Cheney persists in claiming, they were so effective in revealing plans against the U.S.?

Lastly, how can you make a legal or moral justification of torture merely by asserting that it ‘works’ (irrespective of whether it does or not)? By that standard ANY atrocity is permissible as long as the U.S. can claim it produces intelligence.

That attitude ‘justifies’ the North Vietnamese horrific torture of John McCain and 600+ other pilots shot down, any of whom might have had operational information of subsequent bombing raids.

Would it be acceptable to Cheney and Republicans to murder a suspect in front of another in order to terrorize him to give up intelligence? Would it be acceptable to torture and murder his wife and children in front of him as long as the result was ’successful’ in getting him to give up intelligence?

Once you cross the slippery slope of asserting that the end justifies the means, that torture is acceptable because it works (though that is highly disputed), then you remove ANY barriers of humanity and civilized society and nothing, no matter how brutal and obscene, is out of bounds.

Is this the lesson we want to teach other nations about the nature of American values? Is this what we are teaching our own citizens? Is this the new international standard that will be used by any country that captures or kidnaps American military personnel or civilians.

For those not well versed in international law, and not well schooled in morality and ethics (an all too common problem among Americans) here is a very practical yardstick we can use to determine whether any given treatment is acceptable or not. Would we accept the same techniques used by an enemy on our own soldiers and citizens? If the answer is no, then we shouldn’t be doing it ourselves. Period. End of story.

Try Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Addington, Rumsfeld, Bybee, and any other administration official who gave the orders or created the faux legal rationales that the miscreants are now hiding behind. If found guilty, throw the book at them. We still have capital punishment in this country thanks in large part to the very people who have supported the Bush doctrines. Let’s see how any administration official tried and fairly convicted of gross war crimes feels as he is strapped down and faces the lethal injection.

Well the fact of the matter is his daughter is still out in the media making a fool of herself in her plea to leave her daddy alone.

But the Fact of the matter ism Dick Cheney has not and cannot specifically point to one individual and say “this person’s life was saved directly and specifically by torturing a specific detainee, BEYOND ANTREASONABLE DOUBT.

It doesn’t count when Cheney just says “SO”………….

“Osama’s Mission Accomplished

On Thursday, May 1, 2003 President Bush landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Forgetting to undo the parachute clips around his gonads, our President walked bowleggedly on the ship’s deck in a green jumpsuit looking astonishingly like Ham, first chimp in space. The scene was so exciting that the media failed to notice that the War on Terror had ended on the previous Tuesday.

On that day, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quietly acknowledged that he was withdrawing America’s armed forces from Saudi Arabia.

I’m always surprised at the debate over “What drives Osama? What does Al-Qaeda want?” There should be no confusion: Al-Qaeda states its mission, like most enterprises, on its Web site. Osama had it written out in English, in capital letters, so it wouldn’t be difficult to miss the point.

DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES–EXPEL THE INFIDELS FROM THE ARAB PENISULA

The “two holy places” are Mecca and Medina, and their “land” is Saudi Arabia. That’s what Osama wanted: US troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Bid Laden issued his demand on August 23, 1996; and on April 29, 2003, the Tuesday before the President was chauffeured by fighter jet onto the deck of the Abe Lincoln, Mr. Bush gave bin Laden exactly what he wanted: U.S. troops sent packing form the Land of the Holy Places.

That’s astonishing. Until George W.Bush, the United States of America has never, ever, removed all our military bases from a foreign land no matter how much locals bitched and moaned. We even keep troops in Okinawa over the island’s strong objections, and World War II ended sixty year ago.”

pp10-11

Maybe nobody ever mentioned this to Dick.