From the Left; After response to report, will we torture again?

From the Left; After response to report, will we torture again?

Ramblings from E.J. Dionne with comments

WASHINGTON – Can we now say with confidence that our government will not use torture again and that Americans in the future will rise up to prevent it from doing so? In light of the reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, I fear that we can’t.

It was not torture and under the right circumstances we should use "Enhance Interrogation Techniques".

Sen. Dianne Feinstein persisted in releasing the document in the face of opposition from the CIA and attacks by some of her colleagues because she felt a moral calling. The 81-yearold California Democrat believed she had an obligation to leave behind a sturdy ethical roadblock to the use of extreme brutality in pursuit of information – even information seen as potentially saving American lives.

She succeeded in producing propaganda put together by a small group of staffers with an ax to grind.  It is a lie to call purposeful propaganda a "moral calling".

“There are those who will seize upon the report and say ‘see what the Americans did,’ and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or incite more violence,” she said on the Senate floor. “We can’t prevent that. But history will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say ‘never again.’” Yet what might have been a moment of national reflection immediately turned into what everything becomes these days: a carnival of partisanship. Making the truth public, Feinstein’s critics argued, could endanger our nation.

The truth was not made public.  How can the release of an obscure video inflame the Middle East while this so called "Report" does nothing?  Hypocrisy at its worst and with not regard for consequences.

“She will have to live with the consequences,” Sen. Richard Burr, RN. C., who becomes chair of the Intelligence Committee next year, said darkly.

A moving exception was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has denounced torture in season and out. His biography as a prisoner of war has been a standing rebuke to those who choose to play down the consequences of these techniques for our own men and women in uniform. He dismissed the idea that the report itself would be responsible for new attacks on Americans. “Violence needs little incentive in some quarters of the world,” he said.

There is NO moral equivalency to what the CIA did and what was done by other countries in the past.  McCain's reaction is that of one individual.  He cannot speak any further.

The real objection to the release of the report, McCain argued, was that it calls into question the claims by defenders of these techniques that they produced vital information. “We gave up much in the expectation that torture would make us safer,” he said. “Too much.”

Not true.  The claim we gained nothing of consequence has been rebutted successfully by those that were directly involved.  No one bleed, no bones were broken and only 3 were water boarded.

One would like to think that this is now a consensual view, and it is the formal position of our government.

A typical left wing conclusion.  Nothing has become consensual.  All the activities were conducted with grave oversight and pre-approval.

But the pushback against Feinstein makes clear that many involved in “the program,” as they so delicately call this departure from our own norms, would do it all over again.

This is delusional.  Feinstein is being rebuked not simply getting push back.  There is nothing delicate about trashing this countries CIA.

John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director and deputy director, joined with five other former CIA directors and deputy directors in a Wall Street Journal piece that denounced the Senate report as “a poorly done and partisan attack.”

Thank God, they had the courage to do such.  It might disturb E.J. while bringing sanity to the discussion.

But condemning the report as “partisan” is a way of evading its implications. If the issue is partisan, why did President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, defend the agency by declaring that “EITs” – that would be enhanced interrogation techniques – “did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives”?

Brennan did so because the report was "partisan" - E.J. has lost his critical thinking ability.

What’s striking here is the bipartisan unity among intelligence officials.

NOT

My friend and Washington Post colleague Michael Gerson saw partisanship in the committee’s focus on the CIA interrogations that took place under President George W. Bush, but not on the drone program, which Obama has embraced and expanded.

Not one Republican voted for this in committee.  One must wonder what the heck E.J. is saying.  Obama's drone program is killing innocent people including American citizens!?!

But legitimate questions about drones do not discredit either this legitimate inquiry into the use of torture or the obligation that Feinstein and her fellow committee Democrats felt to bear witness.

Notice E.J. left out the FACT that NO CIA official was deposed or testified before the committee.  Operatives have been interviewed since that make the report simply a biased attack.  Feinstein and other Democrats knew and agreed with the EIT's since 2002.  A matter of record.

Defenders of the CIA make a point that should unsettle all of us because it’s true: In the wake of 9/11, the country was so scared that it tolerated or at least entertained a variety of extreme steps to protect our security, including torture. By November of 2001, there was already a public debate about the legitimacy of torture, even if brave voices pushed back in those dark times.

The whole of the intelligence committee were involved, lawyers were involved and the President was involved.  Actions were carefully evaluated in the specific to determine what would be done.  Propaganda is an attempt to rewrite the history of the period without meaningful debate which the Democrats avoided.  Remember.  They only performed a selective document review and did not speak to anyone!

Feinstein, McCain and their allies are hoping they can draw a line now that can strengthen such voices in the future. I wish that the response to their efforts inspired more certainty that their line will hold.

From Merriam Webster: pro·pa·gan·da

 noun \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\ : ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.