Political Advisers Sank Truth Commission
It was bound to happen sooner or later, but it is nonetheless profoundly disappointing. I am not sure, given the gigantic s**t sandwich this man inherited on 1/20, how to make him aware that (at a minimum) the investigation of torture is a moral imperative. (Any doubts about the value of this program should be laid to rest by the testimony of so-called "#3", which the Post elected to place on page A2 in exchange for a critical above-the-fold piece about "Wannabe Wrestlers Ready to Rumble.")
Advertisement
Can you explain your title?
I don't get the importance of the "you are not #3" -- so what?
Is the search for justice/truth sunk, or is this merely an eye of the storm of protest?
June 16, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Key quote (for me, anyway):
"But by late April Obama had vetoed the idea, fearing that it would look vindictive and, possibly, inflame his predecessor. "It was the President who basically said, 'If I do this, it will look like I'm trying to go after Cheney and Bush,' " Panetta said. "He just didn't think it made sense. And then everybody kind of backed away from it."
Recall that Cheney has been on the air everywhere telling lie after lie about what he did and why. Had he not done so (along with his daughter, his golf buddies, and anyone else that he had not yet shot in the face), this would have been politically a much easier sell. Now, it looks "vindictive." So unless there is a groundswell, Cheney wins.
With regard to your second question, Abu Zubaida was the basis for a whole lot of scare-mongering (Greenwald has written about this at some length, I believe). The fact that they had the number three guy in AQ was one of the bases for bringing the torture program to light.
As to whether it's over, I have no idea. I would hope that the Congress grows a spine, but I think I'm more likely to see a unicorn.
June 16, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Recall that Cheney has been on the air everywhere telling lie after lie about what he did and why."
Was that before Obama "vetoed" something? And how is Obama being unhappy with a truth commission his political "advisers" sinking anything?? If anything your quite makes your title false. Obama sank it despite some support from his advisers.
I think you're getting a lot muddled here.
June 16, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for god's sake. From the same article (what is the point of linking to them if they are not read?)
"The opposition really came from Obama's political advisers. David Axelrod, I know, thinks a commission would be a mistake. Basically, they regard their ability to hold the support of independent and conservative Democratic voters as essential politically for their very ambitious agenda. They dread any issue that could launch a divisive culture war. An exploration of Bush's use of torture, seen from this perspective, is a potentially dangerous political distraction."
As to the timing question--the defense of torture began in earnest in the beginning of the year, but reached fever pitch in the last couple of months. Now, suddenly, it's quiet. The chronology is in the New Yorker (also linked in the Froomkin article):
"As soon as Obama took office, he overturned most aspects of the Bush Administration’s interrogation policy. He issued an executive order banning inhumane treatment of prisoners by any government officials, and one closing the C.I.A.’s network of secret “black site” prisons, which stretched from Poland to Thailand. He also vowed to close the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where fourteen former C.I.A. prisoners are being held. But Obama’s message has been uncharacteristically muddled on the question of accountability. He has said that Attorney General Holder should be the one to decide whether to take criminal action; he has also said that he would support further congressional investigation, as long as it was done in a bipartisan fashion. At the same time, he has signalled that he has no appetite for “looking backwards,” and in late April, during a private White House meeting with congressional leaders, he rejected the idea of an outside truth commission. In the meantime, Republicans have seized the political initiative, expressing grave concern about the plans to close Guantánamo and transfer the prisoners to U.S. facilities."
June 16, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point of putting up the wrong quote, except to elicit correction or to dissemble?
I don't recall the Cheney media blitz before April/May. ??
Anyway, no big deal...
June 16, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first quote, for me, is the one that's disappointing. That's on him. I'm not surprised at his political advisers' advice. I do recall some remarks from Cheney as far back as Feb., but my recollection of the onslaught is the same as yours in that it really didn't seem to start till April.
June 18, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink