KARL ROVE DEFENDS WATERBOARDING, SAYS IT PRODUCED "INCREDIBLY VALUABLE" INFORMATION

Karl Rove's defense of water-boarding and other "harsh interrogation techniques" in a BBC interview shows why Obama needs to come out and order the prosecution of all the Bush/Cheney people who adopted and defended torture. Otherwise, when these guys (i.e., almost Republicans) come back into power, the U.S. government will once again employ these same immoral, ineffective and cruel methods.

MAKE PUBLIC ALL GOVERNMENT SECRETS

How long must Obama make the country wait until: the CIA releases its report on interrogation methods; the Justice Department releases its report on how lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel could have written legal opinions justifying waterboarding; Obama makes public those photos of prisoner abuse; we get Bush and Cheney testimony on taking the U.S. into an unjustified war in Iraq?

Carrie Johnson writes in today's thewashingtonpost.com about the government seeking yet another delay in releasing the CIA report:

"Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge yesterday that the disclosure of a hotly anticipated 2004 report by the CIA inspector general on the Bush administration's interrogation program for terrorism suspects will be delayed until shortly before the July 4 holiday weekend."

Instead of maintaining Bush's policy of keeping everything a secret, when will Obama make the decision to reveal all "state secrets" (a euphemism for facts that embarrass people in government) once and for all?

LARRY KUDLOW, "GREAT AMERICAN PATRIOT," ABETS CHENEY'S CAMPAIGN TO JUSTIFY TORTURE

Larry Kudlow, "great American patriot," is interviewing the torturer Dick Cheney on CNBC this afternoon. It amazes me that many Republicans like Kudlow by and large support Cheney, his use of torture, his contempt for the Constitution and basic human rights.

CHENEY MISREPRESENTS CRITICS OF HIS POLICIES ON TORTURE

Dick Cheney in his speech the other day (May 21, 2009) at the American Enterprise Institute came out with many distortions, obfuscations and misrepresentations. Here's one:

"Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them."

First of all, Cheney identifies "American values" as "moral values." Now I support "moral values," but we critics of the Bush/Cheney torture procedures object on the basis, not merely of moral values, but primarily because of legal and constitutional values. The constitution provides that everyone be free with basic human liberties and that no one should be subject to procedures that deny due process. It is these constitutional values that condemn Cheney and his "enhanced interrogation methods" under the law. Maybe Cheney is right to say moral values do not prevent CIA thugs from waterboarding or otherwise torturing terrorist suspects, but certainly constitutional values do.

The fact is, these constitutional values based on the individual rights of all are most important when the country is under attack or when it thinks it is the target of terrorists. If not, imagine the chaos that would result if "terrorists" were seen everywhere? That's what happened in the 500 year life of the Inquisition. Pious folk saw the work of the devil everywhere. Every town had its witches, its heretics, its ungodly. And most of these unfortunates were subject to the same practices as Dick Cheney defends - trial by water, trial by fire, trial on the rack, and other cruel and reprehensible tests.

Furthermore, if waterboarding such people were legal in the case of suspected terrorists, why not ratchet up to the hot branding iron or the rack? Especially if the suspect or witness refuses to talk or to admit what we suspect. There is no end to the regime of torture. Once a little is accepted, no manner of cruelty will go unused.

CHENEY'S FALSE ASSERTIONS ON "ENHANCED METHODS" OF INTERROGATION

Dick Cheney in his speech yesterday claimed that his "enhanced interrogations" were "legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do." This statement is false in each of its parts. Thanks to Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy for their article on Cheney's misstatements.

Each one of Cheney's characterizations of his methods - throwing people against the wall, waterboarding them, stuffing them in small boxes, and otherwise subjecting them to cruel and inhuman treatment - is wrong and false.

First. These techniques were not "legal," notwithstanding legal blessing opinions from Cheney's lawyers who tried to give a veneer of legality to practices clearly illegal and against human rights and dignity. No one can ever justify waterboarding as "legal." It was torture back 600 years ago when churchmen did it to suspected heretics and witches, and it is the same today.

Cheney says his methods were "essential." To what? No professional interrogator relies on torture to elicit information. Why? Because the person being tortured will tell anything his interrogator wants. To prove this point, let's subject Dick Cheney or even Liz Cheney to 60 seconds of waterboarding. Tell them we know they were complicit with Osama bin Laden. We want them to tell all they know. I am sure they will confess everything and then some.

Cheney says his methods were "justified." In other words, waterboarding was the appropriate response to these victims. Remember the Inquisition's leaders believed their waterboarding of people suspected in consort with the devil was also "justified." Looking back over the centuries, nothing ever could "justify" torture.

Cheney says waterboarding was "successful." There has been no evidence to date that Cheney's dark methods produced any information that was not known or discovered beforehand. And officials from the FBI and National Intelligence Agency have refused to say that waterboarding or slamming prisoners into walls produced anything of value.

No, Dick Cheney, your methods of torture were not "the right thing to do." They were wrong, they were illegal, they were torture.

CHENEY'S SPEECH TODAY FILLED WITH INACCURACIES, MISSTATEMENTS, EXAGGERATIONS

Dick Cheney in his speech today claims that "releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to national security interest . . . " Does Cheney mean information in Bybee's opinion of August 1, 2002? Such as, "The waterboard . . . inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever [and] . . . does not inflict 'severe pain or suffering.'" And Cheney thinks this gives terrorists "a lengthy insert for their training manual." What bull!

Here's another Cheney doozie: "Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will feel that sensitive joint operations will be compromised." I suppose Cheney is referring to countries like Poland and Romania that hosted the "black sites" where Cheney's henchmen worked their dark science? Governments like these should worry that the World Court will take action against them for assisting Cheney and the Bush regime in the pursuit of torture.

Cheney again: "And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough? Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing?"

Cheney claims that CIA "operatives" "act lawfully." Cheney of course means that administration lawyers like Jay Bybee, John Yoo and Cheney's own David Addington came up with bogus "legal memoranda" bestowing an imprimatur on the most outrageous, cruel and medieval interrogation methods. The question, however, should be whether anyone in the CIA could possibly think that the legal blessings survive the laugh test. We all know that Cheney put continuous pressure on the CIA to demonstrate a non-existent link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Given that pressure, anyone in the CIA who thought that waterboarding was permitted, or that stuffing a prisoner in a small box for hours on end was allowed, or that sleep deprivation for up to seven days was not cruel and inhuman - anyone who thought that such practices were legal needs to undergo reevaluation of his common sense.

TAMANAHA ON BALKINIZATION: WHAT IF TALIBAN WATERBOARDED U.S. SOLDIERS?

I just read a post by Brian Tamanaha on Balkinization in which he theorizes about the scenario where members of the Taliban capture U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and subject them to waterboarding. The Bush administration especially Dick Cheney claim that waterboarding is not torture, so there is no violation of any Geneva Convention provisions. Furthermore, Tamanaha "quotes" the Taliban as saying that eminent legal scholars (one thinks of former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, John Yoo, David Addington, Jay Scott Bybee and Steven Bradbury) have opined that waterboarding is not torture, therefore the Taliban are not committing war crimes.

TORTURE ALWAYS WRONG ALTHOUGH SOME REPUBLICANS WOULD ALLOW IT

Charles Krauthammer, writing in today's The Washington Post, seems to think that the ethics of torture depend on the situation at hand. In other words, torture is not an absolute evil. Sometimes it is good, sometimes bad, it all depends. Therefore what Bush and Cheney and the rest of their gang did to KSM (183 times on the waterboard) or Zubaydah (over 80) was not intrinsically evil. Rather the situation at that time called for torturing these guys because there could have been a "ticking time bomb."

I reject this situationist ethic. Torture is always wrong and always evil because it tries to achieve common good by sacrificing the rights of the individual. Everyone has the right to be free from Cheney's "harsh interrogation methods." Even the suspected terrorist.

By the way, let's subject Krauthammer to the "test of water." In the days of the Inquisition, sometimes churchmen suspected Widow Jones of being in consort with the devil. They subjected her to the water board, and lo and behold, she confessed that she was indeed a witch. This process must have occurred thousands of times all over medieval Europe. (So much for Sen. Graham's silly assertion that waterboarding has worked for the last 500 years, so it must be good.)

But now let's give Krauthammer a chance on the board. Hey Charlie, we suspect you were the 20th hijacker. So tell us all you know or else. Here's the first cup of water. We won't stop until you admit your complicity and conspiracy.

How long before Krauthammer cries mama and confesses? I bet within 10 seconds.

CHENEY CLAIMS TORTURE SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES

Dan Froomkin in his blog in today's washingtonpost.com points me to the dangerous and silly utterances of Dick Cheney when appearing on CBS Face the Nation yesterday. Apparently Cheney is still pushing the line that his "harsh interrogation methods" saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. And that most Americans would support such "methods" if they knew how effective they were.

First of all, Froomkin points out that there is no credible evidence that torture or waterboarding produced any actionable intelligence that saved lives. Zubayda was waterboarded some 80 times and Khalid Sheik Mohammed over 150. If waterboarding were so effective as Cheney implies, how come it had to be done on multiple occasions to these two prisoners.

But more importantly, even if torture and waterboarding did produce evidence that the government used, would it ever be morally justified? Can we sacrifice the life of an individual for the good of the nation? Do the rights of the majority trump the rights of the individual? Morally, there is no way to justify waterboarding or Cheney's other harsh interrogation methods.

Furthermore, from a legal perspective, waterboarding is a supreme offense against the U.S. Constitution. The rights of an individual are supreme in the Constitution. Consider the Bill of Rights. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and freedom from being tortured by the state. If the individual did not possess these basic and fundamental rights in the U.S., then the U.S. would not be the land of the free or the paragon of democracy.

Historically, states and regimes have always resorted to torture and especially to waterboarding to make the accused tell "the truth." Consider the practices of the Inquisition where the Church turned "heretics" over to the king and the state for tests by water and/or by fire. Imagine if the Church suspected you were in consorts with Satan. Would you confess if you were subject to the trial by water? Would you admit that you were in fellowship with the devil? Suppose it were a test by fire, such as with hot irons? How long would you last without confessing "everything"?

Cheney claims that his interrogation techniques saved thousands of lives. That still is not justification for using them on suspects. If Cheney persists in his argument for this constitutionally abhorrent and immoral practice, I suggest that he himself undergo both water and fire and see how long he can endure without admitting he was the 20th hijacker.

WATERBOARD ALL THOSE SAYING IT IS NOT TORTURE

Let's have a full and open investigation of how George Bush and Dick Cheney instituted a policy of torture on captives believed to be Qaeda supporters.

Recall that the Inquisition lasted about 400 years in Europe from about 1300 to 1700 when the leaders of the French Enlightenment exposed it and its shameful practices of torture to daylight.

Some of the very same methods used by churchmen in the Inquisition to extract confessions of devil worship and witchcraft show up in what we know about Bush and Cheney's policy of "harsh interrogation methods." Trial by water is a good example. Water has long been used to separate the good from the evil. Suspected thieves and robbers were thrown into the water in 13th Centrury England; if their hair stayed dry, they were exonerated. Officials poured water down the throats of suspects. Most confessed within a few seconds. Of course, even after receiving church absolution, these unfortunates were then taken and burned at the stake in the city center.

Of course water was not the only method. Churchmen used hot coals and the wrack to test the innocence of suspected heretics. Surely God would protect them if pure and innocent. Most were found to be allied with Satan.

Those who claim waterboarding is not torture should watch the video of Christopher Hitchens being recently waterboarded. Hitchens volunteered. He lasted about 20 seconds before he could not take any more. Better yet, defenders of waterboarding - Hannity, Thiessen, Cheney, Rice, Addington, Tenet, et al. - we should waterboard all of them and not stop unless they make a full and complete confession. First let's accuse them of (take your pick): supporting Al Qaeda, practicing witchcraft, planning to detonate a dirty bomb in NYC, being in consort with Satan, practicing socialism, or whatever. Let's see how much water they can stand before they confess.

LET'S SUBJECT DICK CHENEY TO WATERBOARDING

Marc Thiessen gives us in today's The Washington Post a specious reason supporting his assertion that Obama was wrong to release the torture memos: Al Qaeda will use this information to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. (Thiessen by the way is a former speech writer for George W. Bush.)

Oh yeah! Sure! Thiessen's assertion does not pass the laugh test. Al Qaeda is going to train its soldiers to overcome waterboarding? Or being stuffed in a black box together with biting insects? How about training for loss of sleep for seven days? Or being doused with cold water? These Al Qaeda guys sure are tough and made of steel.

I have a good suggestion. Let's waterboard Thiessen and his fellow torture-defending Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, and find out if they have any secrets to reveal. Perhaps Thiessen and Cheney are really Al Qaeda operatives and are planning an attack against some city in the United States.

If they are innocent, well we will soon know. But let's stop the waterboarding or other torture only if and when they admit their terrorist guilt.

TORTURE OF ABU ZABAIDA OBTAINED NO USEFUL INFORMATION YET CHENEY/BUSH CONTINUE TO INSIST WATERBOARDING WORKED

Dick Cheney likes to say that locking up Al Qaeda suspects in Guantanamo without any rights to trial or to legal counsel, as well as waterboarding and other methods of torture on these detainees, made the U.S. safer. Witness no attacks sine 9/11.

Cheney's assertions of course come with no evidence or support. Cheney claims that he has seen intelligence reports saying that "harsh interrogation methods" work and have resulted in information which has foiled serious attacks in their incipient phase. But Cheney says the reports are classified, so we will just have to accept his word for it.

Today, however, Joby Warrick and Peter Finn write in The Washington Post that contrary to the assertions of George W. Bush and Cheney, the waterboarding and other torture applied to Abu Zabaida yielded no useful information, but wasted millions of dollars of investigation time by the CIA and FBI on unsubstantiated phony leads.

Write Finn and Warrick:

"When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

"The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

"In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said."

So much for Bush & Cheney's baseless claims that waterboarding and other torture succeeded in foiling terrorist plots aimed at the U.S. Yet these guys, especially Cheney, continue to make the unfounded claims that because of their direction for tougher interrogation (aka torture), the United States was made safer from terrorist attacks.

Write Warrick and Finn:

"Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

"Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

""I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

"Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests."

Note Cheney's statement appearing to vouch for the bad intelligence that "itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs . . ." He says, "I've seen a report that was written . . . that itemizes . . ." So Cheney has seen a report. Does he believe the contents of the report? Does he say that the contents were true? Someone wrote a report that Cheney now uses to imply that "specific attacks" were stopped. Who wrote the report? Was it someone on Cheney's staff, such as David Addington?

Cheney's statement is crafty insofar as Cheney says he has seen a report but cannot make it public because it is classified. But that does not mean that the content of the report was true, or that the information was solid, or that the author wrote the report for any other than biased political argumentation.

CHENEY INSISTS TORTURE WAS JUSTIFIED

Dick Cheney is still at it, threatening the country with destruction unless Obama retains harsh interrogation methods (i.e., torture), the hated Patriot Act, as well as unconstitutional eavesdropping of Americans' telephone calls without warrants.

Politico interviewed Cheney today, and among other things, Politico reporters John F. Harris, Mike Allen & Jim Vanderhei quote Cheney as follows:

"Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”"

Here Cheney admits that he engaged in activities which he himself describes as "mean, dirty, nasty ..."

Harris, Allen and Vanderhei quote Cheney on national security:

"“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said."

In other words, Cheney is proud and stands by his implementation of torture on the captured Al Qaeda suspects held at Guantanamo and elsewhere.

But what if the "Al Qaeda terrorist" is only a farm boy or a rustic Afghan villager picked up in Afghanistan and sold to the Americans for U.S. dollars? What if Cheney's "terrorist" turns out to be unconnected with any jihad or has never even heard of Osama bin Laden? Can the U.S. torture this person without any accountability? And what does it say to the rest of the world when everyone finds out that the hard-core" prisoners in U.S. detention camps are totally innocent?

I have a good suggestion what to do with Cheney. Let's subject him to "harsh interrogation methods" and see if he confesses. If waterboarding is no big deal to him, let's try it out on him. To stop the ordeal, we must insist that Cheney confess to be bin Laden's undercover counsellor. I predict Cheney will confess within 30 seconds.

Remind you of anything historical? Oh yes! The Inquisition in Spain and Portugal and the rest of Europe used this very technique of water torture on all those accused of being in consort with Satan. Almost everyone confessed.

SECOND POST ON SARAH PALIN TODAY - WE DON'T KNOW HER OPINIONS ON MAJOR ISSUES

I posted today about Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications to be vice president. Some may think my criticisms unfair and sexist, but I had the same qualms about George W. and look what happened. The electorate chose someone "likeable" (Bush that bully!) over competent and knowledgeable Al Gore. I guess it is possible that the electorate will find Palin acceptable and deserving to be elected, but I certainly do not, not at this time. And I fear the same disaster in foreign and domestic policy, the same melt down, the same disregard for Constitutional protections if Palin gets in as what happened when Americans elected Bush and Cheney.

The electorate needs to know Palin's opinions. Does anyone know how she feels about Iran? Or about Russia? (No it is not enough to say that Palin is governor of Alaska which is the state nearest to Russia). How would she get American troops out of Iraq? What is her attitude towards Palestinians? Towards Israel and its new settlements?

And on the domestic front, what are her plans for Social Security? Does she want to privatize it the way that McCain and Bush propose? And what about domestic eavesdropping without FISA court approval? And what does she think about immigration and ICE's treatment of immigrants caught up in those dreadful raids?

Does she believe in waterboarding or other "enhanced interrogation methods?" How does she feel about depriving Guantanamo prisoners of Constitutional rights such as habeas corpus or the right to counsel? Does she believe in the use of force as the main tool for American diplomacy? Does she agree with Bush and Cheney that military force makes right? Does she approve of the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive war?

These are some of the things no one knows yet about Sarah Palin.

I don't think that people whether male or female are going to vote for her without knowing where she stands. So far, she seems not to have expressed many opinions other than drill for more oil.

I still think this selection of Palin shows how desperate McCain must be about winning the forthcoming election.

CHENEY A WORLD TROUBLEMAKER FEATURED IN TODAY'S NY TIMES

We don't need Vice President Cheney travelling to Georgia on Tuesday stirring up trouble there against the Russians.

Cheney's idea of American power is exclusively one of military power. He would like to attack Iran and also maybe North Korea. He was the architect of using methods of torture to interrogate Islamic prisoners of war held at Bagram and Guantanamo. He approved every use of waterboarding.

And what is the result? The world loathes Americans and their pretentious portrayal of themselves as defending liberty and justice for all. Cheney has made the world so much more dangerous, so much more liable to acts of terrorism, with so much more hate and racial and ethnic distrust.

Yet Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in today's The New York Times a story on Cheney that attempts to make him less of a monster, more mellow, more introspective.

Writes Stolberg:

"Mr. Cheney declined to be interviewed. But those close to him say he approaches retirement with neither reticence nor eagerness, but rather with a Zen-like confidence that even his most controversial moves, like his stance in favor of domestic wiretapping, have been necessary to keep the country safe.

"“It’s not suffering defeats, it’s not nostalgia, it’s not urgency to get stuff done, it’s not, ‘I can’t wait to get out of here,’ ” said Mary Matalin, a longtime adviser, describing Mr. Cheney’s state of mind. “I hate to use yoga terms, but he’s really in the moment.”"

Hasn't Stolberg read Jane Mayer's The Dark Side? How can we talk about Cheney without talking about torture, waterboarding, rendition, secret prisons, disregard for human rights, desire to attack Iran, predilection for military confrontations, the shredding of the U.S. Constitution in favor of executive power?

BUSH, CHENEY WANT CONGRESS TO GO ALONG THAT U.S. IS STILL "AT WAR"

Eric Lichtblau has an important article in today's The New York Times on the machinations of the Bush administration aimed at codifying that the U.S. remains "at war" with Al Qaeda.

Reports Lichtblau:

"Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush’s advisers assert that many Americans may have forgotten that. So they want Congress to say so and “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

"The language, part of a proposal for hearing legal appeals from detainees at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, goes beyond political symbolism. Echoing a measure that Congress passed just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, it carries significant legal and public policy implications for Mr. Bush, and potentially his successor, to claim the imprimatur of Congress to use the tools of war, including detention, interrogation and surveillance, against the enemy, legal and political analysts say."

This proposal smacks of Cheney and his diabolical assistant David Addington. By having congress go along and reaffirm that the U.S. is "at war," Cheney and Addington hope to put up an extra buffer between themselves and those who feel they must be held accountable for the introduction of "harsh interrogation methods," read "torture."

Writes Lichtblau:

"Mr. Mukasey laid out the administration’s thinking in a July 21 speech to a conservative Washington policy institute in response to yet another rebuke on presidential powers by the Supreme Court: its ruling that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay , were entitled to habeas corpus rights to contest their detentions in court.

"The administration wants Congress to set out a narrow framework for those prisoner appeals. But the administration’s six-point proposal goes further. It includes not only the broad proclamation of a continued “armed conflict with Al Qaeda,” but also the desire for Congress to “reaffirm that for the duration of the conflict the United States may detain as enemy combatants those who have engaged in hostilities or purposefully supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations.” "

Congress must not go along with this. The Bush regime of using waterboarding, harsh methods of interrogation, sleep deprivation, long hours of forced standing, psychological punishments - these must not be allowed to become institutionalized because the U.S. is "at war." Cheney, Addington, Rice, Chertoff, Libby and Bush must all face trial as war criminals after their term of office comes to an end. Only another five months!

BUSH - HEAD TRASHER OF U.S. CONSTITUTION - CRITICIZES CHINESE FOR LIMITING RIGHTS

I would like to see George W. Bush just shut up, to quote Keith Olbermann, when it comes to his telling and lecturing other countries and regimes how to manage their own internal affairs.

Last night, TV reports showed Bush lecturing the Chinese on their society, wishing that the Chinese would respect such things as freedom of speech and religion. This would be well and good if Bush had clean hands. But he does not. He is after all the person responsible for creating Guantanamo, military tribunals, use of harsh interrogation methods (a euphemism for waterboarding and torture), Abu Ghraib, rendition of suspects to other totalitarian regimes for extreme punishments, flouting of valid laws passed by Congress, and an overall trashing of individual constitutional rights.

Here is the report of Bush's speech in The Washington Post as reported by Debbi Wilgoren and Michael Abramowitz.

DAVID ADDINGTON & JOHN YOO TESTIFY (?) AT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING, SAY NOTHING

Did anyone see the House hearing with David Addington and John Yoo the other dayon C-SPAN?

Addington is Cheney's right hand man. He is not a nice guy. No wonder that many believe that he is responsible for the implementation of waterboarding and other methods of torture at Guantanamo and other despicable things in those dark CIA prisons. You could see his dripping contempt for members of Congress and his supreme displeasure at having to testify.

John Yoo came off as a nicer guy, but he was no more helpful than Addington. Yoo refused to answer most questions on the 2002 Memo that he helped craft justifying techniques short of causing organ failure or death, claiming that the Department of Justice, his former employer, had told him not to testify.

When you consider that these are the guys who are running the country, you can more easily understand how the "home of the free and the land of the brave" has become tarnished with works of torturers and war mongers.

BUSH BECOMES HEAD TORTURER, VETOES BILL TO STOP CIA WATERBOARDING

Who is this medieval torturer that we have in the White House? Today George Bush vetoes a bill that would ban the CIA from using methods of torture, such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, forced standing for long hours, and similar harsh methods.

Until the French Enlightenment in the 18th Century, all of these techniques were common. The Inquisition, harshest in Spain and Portugal, but existing all throughout Europe, made use of these same interrogation techniques.

Look what U.S. president George W. Bush has done! He has made the United States a pariah among all civilized nations by reintroducing these methods of torture that the whole civilized world rejects and bans. Bush has made America the Torturer of the World. How long will it take for the U.S. to recover from this reputation?

H.W. BUSH ENDORSES MC CAIN, SAYS HE IS FIT TO LEAD "WORLD AT WAR"

John Mc Cain now says he would be honored if W. campaigned for him, Michael D. Shear reports today in The Washington Post in its campaign blog, The Trail.

"As he accepted the endorsement of former president George H. W. Bush, Sen. John McCain declared that he would be "honored" to campaign with the current President Bush during the upcoming campaign in the fall."

This all happened in Houston today when former president H.W. endorsed McCain, saying that he was the best candidate "for a world at war."

"The former president had stayed neutral during the past year of primary battles, but heaped praise on McCain at a news conference in Houston. Standing next to McCain, Bush called him the best person for a world at war."

"In the coming election, we do not have the luxury of taking a pass on our unique role and responsibilities in the world," Bush said. "No one is better prepared to lead our nation in these trying times than Senator John. McCain.""

"Bush said McCain's character was "forged in the crucible of war" and he said he has "the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment." "

So now Bush Sr. has given John McCain the kiss of death. The Democrats have an easy target: John McCain as the standard bearer of all the tragic mistakes of both Bush Sr. and Jr. McCain gladly accepts the transfer of leadership and says he would be "honoured" to campaign with W. Incredibly, McCain says W. was right in starting the illegal and unjustified war in Iraq.

By the way, McCain also accepts and supports Bush's use of waterboarding and mistreatment of prisoners, at least if conducted not by the military but by the CIA.