Sunday Morning News and Notes

Spring has sprung and yesterday was the nicest day of the year so far. Today is looking iffy but hey, take what you can get.

Here's the latest from around the globe:

-The Taliban allegedly execute a man who was assisting the military in wiping out al-Qaeda and Taliban elements.

-Liberals are wringing their hands because we waterboarded KSM 183 times. It wasn't enough to make up for 3,000 dead in my opinion. Add to that we have no idea what intelligence was gained so it could have been fruitful.

-Arguing the "Tea Party" turnout. It doesn't make much sense and the political left and Democrat party would be foolish to brush it off as the fringe right.

-No arguing how many turned out to pay respects to Harry Kalas. He was loved in this region and will be sorely missed.

-Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is under fire. I don't worry about King, he can handle himself just fine.

-Iowahawk has the transcript to his newest movie posted. Pure genius once again.

Pic at right via Lucianne.com.

Obama Releases Torture Docs

The day started as one of hope for the anti-Bush, Anti-war lefties who consider us as torturers on a par with Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Sudan:

UPDATE: Here’s a link to the memos (the Times also has them) with three cheers for the FOIA petition from the ACLU. …and on quick inspection of the documents, the redaction rumors are correct, with Obama deserving a lot of credit for allowing the bulk of the information into the light. I said earlier that the burden of proof was on Obama if he decided not to release the OLC memos. Now that he has, with few redactions, credit goes to President Obama. This is definitely change we can believe in.

Congress, you’re up.

However, they quickly became disillusioned when The One said he wouldn't prosecute those who performed the "torture":

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

Alas for our left-wing friends, they will not see the objects of their scorn strung up because Obama--at least in prosecuting the War on Terror--knows full-well that he may be required to take steps that would have him answering to Congress in 2013 about the tactics he approved. He's now understanding that Bush took actions he deemed appropriate with arch terrorist Zubaydah who probably disclosed important info that we'll never hear about--info that may have saved lives. It seems Obama is realizing that repelling America's enemies and gaining intel is not like reading from a teleprompter in front of 10,000 Obamatons in Sioux City Sioux Falls.

And what of the allegations the alleged torture has been worse and more frequent since Obama took office? Water boarding versus hands-on physical abuse is more disconcerting, don't you think? Of course the source is al-Jazeerah but liberals always took their word when they complained while Bush was in office so I guess they are a legitimate source in their eyes.

Besides, he has been pretty zealous in going beyond the laws on wiretapping so why should BHO supporters be surprised?

Update: B & R had the same thoughts as I did before I did.

Obama Perpetuates Torture of Terrorists

Oh how sweet it is. Obama is now finding out just what a difficult job it is to deal with those who with America harm. Or as Bush famously noted: "It's hard work".

The libs screamed about the alleged abuses perpetrated by the evil Bush regime and turned all their hopes to BHO because he took a "courageous" stand against torturous tactics like waterboarding and playing the Barney song too loud.

Guess what libs, your man, Mr. Hope and Change (TM) is selling you out:

The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

But, but, but, President Bush used rendition and the left screamed like little girls. Now...I'm deafened by their silence.

Rendition is actually the worse method for dealing with terrorists short of assassination. We effectively give them to their home countries where they are tortured in much more barbaric ways then temperature changes and blaring Christina Aguilera music. The Obama EO effectively ensures that more torture, not less, will occur. Either that or they are released and continue jihad as happens so often in Yemen.

So how is it going to be liberals? Obama, by shutting down Gitmo is setting in motion a scenario whereby we'll see either more torture of suspected terrorists or less security for the US. You can't have it both ways; you either disagree with the president and say so--the intellectually honest choice. Or you remain silent while the president you elected continues to sanction torture world-wide. My guess is you'll select the latter over the former.

It's quite a conundrum, huh? I mean, here's the man who just by taking the oath was going to make the world all happy and sunny again and he seems to be overwhelmed in his first month. He's had to be pragmatic and realistic about the threats we face and in doing so has ditched everything you elected him for. In other words, he's shown that he's more like Bush in dealing with national defense the Jimmy Carter retread you hoped for. Hope y'all enjoy it.

I think I may finally go see the movie Rendition now that it's not only an anti-Bush flick but anti-Obama as well.

Please read Moe Lane at Redstate and at his own site, his take is excellent. Moe won't link to the libs who were most outspoken about renditions but I will:

Andrew Sullivan railed against the practice here. Notably, he wrote the following two weeks ago:

The rationale is not torturing for “intelligence” but protecting the public while evidence is searched for and doubt remains. Equally, some kind of rendition programme that follows the lines of Bill Clinton and the first President Bush — and that eschews any co-operation with regimes that torture — is a reasonable tool in the war against jihadist terror. It’s the Bush-Cheney innovation of “extraordinary renditions” and disappearances that has to end.

Emphasis mine. What nations would these men be sent to that don't use torture?

Nearly every captive at Gitmo is from the Mid-East; mainly Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and Morocco. According to Human Rights Watch; Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Morocco practice torture--real torture, not water boarding--while Amnesty International says that the Saudis and Yemenis use torture as well.

So tell me where you fall on this, Sully.

See also Ed Morrisey.

Shoe Throwing Egyptian Reporter Allegedly Beaten, al-Sadr Supporter

The reporter from Egypt who threw his shoes at President Bush was allegedly shown some rough treatment by the Iraqi's. Not even remotely surprisingly, the lefties took it as complete Iraqi repudiation of President Bush's authorization and subsequent winning of the war.

Also not quite too surprising is the guy is a supporter of the once powerful, now impotent Moqtada al-Sadr.

Now I'm not supporting any rough treatment or as the lefties label it "torture" of any person but I find it interesting that those who label it torture lump us in with the Iraqi's when it is clear that any beating he endured happened at an Iraqi facility and then he was transferred to an American facility later and reportedly treated at an American hospital. I'm sure he was not treated the slightest bit poorly by Americans.

There are many Arabs who have great hatred for America because of our support of Israel, our support of democracy and our ousting of Saddam. I understand that completely. However, to paint one reporter's actions with the feelings of a newly free nation is ridiculous beyond words. Clearly the guy is sympathetic to al-Sadr, a man we proved a coward (and called out by Condi Rice for being one) by repeatedly chasing away to Iran and a man who we beat and disgraced in front of his entire nation.

Liberals will never, ever concede the point that we have left Iraq with greater hope and more freedom than they ever would have attained had we left Saddam in power. Sadly, they once again want to believe the worst about America then give us the benefit of the doubt. They are not anti-American, they're just on the other side.

Update: Great point:

Because would an Iraqi journalist have ever thrown a shoe at Saddam Hussein, and if so, would he have ever again needed two shoes?

Via Tim Blair.

Sullivan's Pretzel Logic on Abortion and Torture

Try to follow the great St. Andrew as he twists himself in a complete knot in one paragraph. Let's break it down, shall we?

I could never be an abortionist and admire those in the medical profession who refuse to become one. The difference of course, is that the government is actually torturing; it is not merely permitting torture.

The "government" is not doing the "torturing", (Sullivan calls waterboarding torture), it has policies in place that say what can and can't be used to coerce information. By that thinking that Sullivan puts to pixels, the government by allowing abortion is thereby aborting. You can't say one and then exclude the other using that logic.

And so all of us are far more directly implicated in the government's torture than we are in a constitutional regime in which other private citizens are permitted to abort the unborn children of consenting women.

Wrong! We, by allowing abortion to remain legal are implicated in the deaths of millions of children. some very late term and viable and some who are born alive and then killed (what some may call torture far worse than waterboarding).

I guess that Sullivan is so incoherent at this point--what with trying to prove that Trig Palin is Bristols' and all--that he can't put together a logical argument without twisting himself into a gobsmackingly crazy-ass pretzel.

Mumbai Jews Tortured, Liberals Silent

As expected, the Islamo-fascists who targeted the few Jews in Mumbai tortured them mercilessly:

Asked what was different about the victims of the incident, another doctor said: "It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatised. A bomb blast victim's body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words," he said.

Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: "It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood," one doctor said.

The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. "During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis," an IB source said.

It is also said that the Israeli hostages were killed on the first day as keeping them hostage for too long would have focused too much international attention. "They also might have feared the chances of Israeli security agencies taking over the operations at the Nariman House," he reasoned.

Emphasis mine.

The political left in this country wails about waterboarding, which may cause momentary terror but is not fatal and does not leave a physical scar. They scream that Bush supports torture at every opportunity they get but when faced with the proof of real torture, unthinkable torture, they are silent. What could the Muslim terrorists have done that was so brutal as to make a doctor not want to speak or think of it?

Look who commented on this article at Technorati. Glenn Reynolds posted on it so it got wide exposure but still liberals say nothing. This was a hate crime--targeted at a specific group of people--that should be a natural for liberals to discuss. Instead, they have thrown their lot in with Muslims and will never, ever say anything that would make Bush look right in the Global War on Terror. Double that for Israeli's. Add in their blatant anti-Semitism or, at best hatred of Israel and you have the vile ingredients of their collective silence.

Two young people who wished nothing more than to practice their religion were slaughtered after unspeakable torture and liberals say nothing. I guess the Obama search for the next Secretary of Agriculture is of greater import.

These people make me utterly sick; people were tortured in ways that were unthinkable and they say nothing. They slaughtered them because of who they are and nothing more. Who knows, they may even have supported right of return or evacuating to the '67 borders. They were tortured and murdered and we hear nothing from those who claim to care. Pathetic.

Other thoughts here and here.

H/T: Jawas.

Addendum: To be very clear, I feel for all the victims but it is abundantly clear that they targeted and used the most barbaric methods of torture imaginable specifically for the Jews.

Update: more here.

Update: Accuse America of torture and the libs are all over it. Here's the Technorati feed. Just as I intimated above, if it's torture against a man like Zarqawi, the libs are all over it. Torture and murder of innocent Jews, not so much.

Update: It's always funny to watch libs try to justify the senseless killing of absolute innocents, isn't it. I like the way they twist themselves like pretzels to get the Muslims off the hook.

McCain Feels the Conservative Heat

Senator McCain today went against his previous word and voted no on a bill that would ban waterboarding:

The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.

Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture, and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques.

...Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

McCain could have chosen not to vote or voted "present" but sent a signal to Conservatives that he's trying to gain their trust. This vote was enormous in that quest.

Waterboarding is not torture, there's no chance of death or permanent injury and is one of the only tactics we have to get high-level al-Qaeda operatives to talk. It's been used selectively--exactly three times and all on big names such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and has proven effective.

The US doesn't torture and doesn't use assassination as a rule, yet we need to be able to get information quickly from these high-level targets and waterboarding is an effective means.

McCain was ballsy in voting down the amendemnt from Feinstein and it's got the nutroots all worked up. Of course the idiots who oppose waterboarding give us no other realistic options and what would their opinion be if we had an al-Qaeda leader who had the intel on a major plot, or worse yet, a nuke attack in their home city? Would they take the only available tool away from our intelligence services if it meant the death of themselves and their children? Would Feinstein feel the same if it were San Francisco that was targeted?

McCain had no option but to take a stand and get the Conservative vote in his favor because without us in November, he stand no chance against what is increasingly appearing to be Obama.

Highlights and Headlines

A few interesting reads.

Eight Dems who voted for a resolution marking Ramadan voted against a resolution marking Christmas. The party of diversity my ass.

Would the Dems have allowed water boarding of Mohammed Atta? A good question from IBD.

Mans best friend and a soldiers too.

Fareed Zakaria interviews Ayaan Hirsi-Ali. When you get a few minutes, check this out, the woman is a rue hero.

Baseball is about to get a serious black eye. Who'll be on the list? McGwire, Sosa...

Pelosi Knew of Waterboarding in 2002

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was given a top secret briefing on waterboarding in 2002 the Washington Post reports today:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

Did Pelosi act outraged at the time? No:

Pelosi declined to comment directly on her reaction to the classified briefings. But a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter said the California lawmaker did recall discussions about enhanced interrogation. The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.

That is spin in the extreme. The "planning" was far enough along that Rep. Jane Harman sent a letter explaining her opposition of the technique. Why didn't Pelosi do the same if she had any reservations about using waterboarding at the time? Because she didn't have an reservations until it was disclosed and she saw a chance to slam the Bush administration. Also note that Senator Rockefeller didn't object to the method as well.

I can't wait to see what comes out during the general election with regard to secret briefings that were conducted.