Karl Rove Hip Deep in the Torture Memos?
I "embraced and extended" this from a post on 40 Years in the Desert, where I note how well Rachel Maddow ties the torture issue together, and leaves a finger pointing to the very top.
She links torture to political needs, as opposed to security needs. ( below, 13:23)
So, we already have reports, the famous "Mayberry Machiavelli" quote, that there was really no policy apparatus in the Bush White House, just a political one.
We also know that they were waterboarding some suspects six times a day for at least a month, which only makes sense if you want to coerce a lie, as opposed to uncovering actionable information.
The need to torture was less a policy decision than one to justify and gain support for an invasion if Iraq, and this invasion was driven to a large degree by a political consideration that "finishing the job" there would secure reelection for George W. Bush.
So the alpha and omega of the decision to torture was really politics and electioneering.
And whose office did politics and electioneering go through? Whose office was at the center of any discussion of political calculus?
Karl Christian Rove, that's who.
From a political standpoint, he has to realize that constantly bringing up Bush and Cheney hurts the Republican party that he professes to love, so why is he bring them back, if just to defend them?
The answer is that it's not about the Republican Party, it's about keeping Karl Christian Rove out of jail.
She links torture to political needs, as opposed to security needs. ( below, 13:23)
So, we already have reports, the famous "Mayberry Machiavelli" quote, that there was really no policy apparatus in the Bush White House, just a political one.
We also know that they were waterboarding some suspects six times a day for at least a month, which only makes sense if you want to coerce a lie, as opposed to uncovering actionable information.
The need to torture was less a policy decision than one to justify and gain support for an invasion if Iraq, and this invasion was driven to a large degree by a political consideration that "finishing the job" there would secure reelection for George W. Bush.
So the alpha and omega of the decision to torture was really politics and electioneering.
And whose office did politics and electioneering go through? Whose office was at the center of any discussion of political calculus?
Karl Christian Rove, that's who.
From a political standpoint, he has to realize that constantly bringing up Bush and Cheney hurts the Republican party that he professes to love, so why is he bring them back, if just to defend them?
The answer is that it's not about the Republican Party, it's about keeping Karl Christian Rove out of jail.
Advertisement
Yeah, it's all supposition, but it rings true to me.
April 24, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if your conclusion is true, but we don't know the whole truth do we? That's why we have to continue the investigation and take prosecutions where they lead us. The whole truth may be even more sordid than even we believe it to be. On the other hand, if there is any reason to vindicate the Bush administration, you'd think they'd want the truth out there as well.
April 24, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no reason to vindicate Bush and his administration.
There is no reason to vindicate people who actually performed torture - unless you want to keep these zombies for your own purposes.
Either torture is against the law or it isn't. Either we apply laws in full or we don't.
But the bi-partisan honest investigation is going to reveal complicity and involvement from both parties, republicans AND democrats. That's why there will be no investigation, no reconciliation, no prosecution and no closure.
April 25, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't think of a better denouement for this whole fiasco than the prospect of that fat fuckwad in jail.
April 24, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Principals Committee is one "link" which doesn't necessarily involve Rove.
She's lying about there having been no early interrogations. 4:55 or so into the video. I've seen reports saying that interrogators were frustrated at not coming up with good results in late 2001.
Rummy did approve stuff in Dec 2002. But in Jan. 2003 he removed his approval. She skips that part. She also skips that something was approved a few months later.
7 min. in... still nothing about Rove or the PC.
"trying to find the Iraq link" can be legit or wrong. Her show is just spinning it one way. Her guest is doing worse.
9 min, still nothing.
Acute frustration over no WMDs ... after invasion? But KSM was waterboarded in March 2003. So that's another disconnect in the picture they are painting.
11 min, still a waste of time.
Making the FBI out to be the good guys.
Confuses debriefing with interrogation.
She's probably right in her closing "editorializing"
Very weak.
April 24, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I adore Rachel Maddow. She has an amazing mind for details. I'm sure having a Ph.D. and being a Rhodes Scholar helps her be as accurate and thorough as she is.
I have been listening to her for years on Air America before she came to MSNBC. Her analysis on the political arena has always been spot on. (truly it is eerie how much she calls em)
April 25, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I adore Rachel Maddow too. She turns me on. If only she had a bigger rack.
April 25, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink