According to the Washington Post the current adminstration actually held a debate to help in deciding whether or not to release the memos.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/58_say_release_of_cia_memos_endangers_national_security
* 58 percent of voters say the Obama administration's recent release of DOJ memos "endangers the national security of the United States." Fewer than half as many 28 percent, think it "helps America's image abroad." Ooops!
* 70 percent also say America's legal system either does a good job of weighing security against individual rights, or puts too much emphasis on individual rights at the expense of security. Only 21 percent say the legal system is "too concerned about protecting national security."
* Only 28 percent want the Obama administration to investigate how the Bush administration treated terrorists. 58 percent want no such investigations.
* Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay is now disapproved of by a 46-36 margin, with support for Obama's action declining. (Oh well making absolute statements as the President some times can bite you in the behind.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The results were not redacted, they were not included. There is a significant difference. You needn't embellish to make your point.
Personally, I'd be delighted to see the information gathered due to torture, so long as it doesn't provide any useful information to the bad guys.
Mark, you obviously researched the topic well. Do you distinguish between torture for fishing expeditions and torture to find out about the "ticking time bomb" that Dershowitz talks about?
The original post
The Post's report may not be accurate and complete, but if it is, the striking thing about the debate was the absence of any argument in favor of releasing the documents other than partisan gain. According to the Post, Obama's advisers want to undermine Vice President Cheney's claim that the Barry Hussein administration's approach to interrogations is making us less safe. Cheney understands this, which is why he shrewedly responded to the release of the information on interrogation techniques by calling on the White House to release documents showing the intelligence gains produced by the tactics in question.
Barry himself has presented his most fundamental reason for releasing the information. He wants to show, as he told reporters on Tuesday, that the U.S. lost its "moral bearings" during the Bush years. Indeed, he wants to skew the evidence in that direction through a one-sided release of information that ignores the moral benefits -- including protecting lives -- of the Bush administration's actions. This part of the memos was redacted by Barry's boys.
But why? Doing so may serve Barry's narrow interest in looking good at Bush's expense. But how does it serve the national interest to portray the U.S. as having acted immorally for years? Is Barry really narcissistic enough to believe that the takeaway of our enemies and critics will be "Barry Hussein cleanses U.S. soul," rather than "Barry Hussein admits U.S. lost its soul?
Secretary Gates doesn't share this belief. He believes that Barry's decision has the potential to produce "a backlash in the Middle East and in theatres where we're involved in conflict" and "might have a negative impact on our troops."
Admiral Dennis Blair, Barry's own Intelligence czar, well understood the demoralizing effect of the President's decision on the intelligence community. Blair was quite clear in his letter to the intelligence community after the release of the memos, about the problem of demoralization, going so far as to compare the status of intelligence community members to that of military personnel returning from Vietnam in the early 1970s.
These would be stiff prices to pay for trying to make Dick Cheney look bad and Barry Hussein to look good.
Also in the Post's account those who argued against releasing details about interrogation techniques were no more high-minded than the other side. Their main argument seems to have been that releasing the information "could spark a national security debate with conservatives that could undermine Barry's broader agenda."
In other words, the debate over which Barry presided was all about what would help him politically. What a shame. No one debated as to what would be better for the country strategically only what would be the right thing to do politically. Where is the "moral" highground in this. So even if it emboldens are enemies and makes us less safe it was still the right thing to do because it countered what Vice President Cheney said. It appears that the truth really hurts Barry! And just for Rich it appears that the public agrees with Cheney.
Post a Comment