12/13/14

Media Struggle to Save Obama, Not the Country

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A story in Thursday’s Washington Post about establishing Obama’s “foreign policy legacy” goes a long way toward explaining why the Senate Democrats and the media have been trashing the Bush administration’s very productive enhanced interrogation program as “torture.”

Titled “Obama’s foreign policy plans collide with wars abroad and politics at home,” the story by Greg Jaffe and Juliet Eilperin made it clear that CIA director John Brennan’s defense of the agency had thwarted Obama’s plan “to move the country beyond what he [Obama] has described as the fearful excesses of the post-9/11 era.” While Obama has banned what he calls “torture,” he has failed to close the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Gitmo), established by the Bush administration to house terrorist suspects. Other problems outlined in the Post article include the continuing war in Afghanistan and a new war in Iraq and Syria against ISIS.

What Obama calls “torture” is what the media call “torture.” If you needed any more proof of a pro-Obama media bias, just look at how regularly the personalities on CNN, supposedly more moderate than MSNBC, have adopted his terms of the debate. This is the media’s way of saying that Obama was right and that it’s good he has banned this way of getting information from terrorists. Never mind that Obama’s way of murder through drone strikes is decidedly more “harsh.” Bush grilled them, Obama kills them.

Without a foreign policy “legacy” of some kind, Obama’s two terms will look like a failure and the Democrats will be doomed in 2016.

Domestically, his only real “accomplishment” at this point looks like the Eric Holder policy of suspending enforcement of federal marijuana laws. This will be a “legacy” of interest to fellow pothead members of Obama’s “Choom Gang” in Hawaii, and the emerging cannabis industry.  But it’s doubtful most people will appreciate this historic development.

Obama’s signature “accomplishment” in domestic affairs, Obamacare, has been exposed as a massive fraud and deception. According to a new CBS News poll, race relations have dramatically deteriorated under the first black president. It’s true he is moving forward unconstitutionally with amnesty for illegal aliens. But House Republicans are promising to do something about that next year. The economy is still lackluster. So foreign policy is really his only hope of doing anything positive, and he’s running into the facts of life there, too. The terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans is only one part of his legacy. The legacy of that attack hurts both Obama and Hillary Clinton, his former Secretary of State and likely 2016 Democratic candidate. And it’s doubtful that an Iran with nuclear weapons would qualify as a positive foreign policy legacy for Obama, either.

One can suppose that Obama will try to claim he was the one who got Osama bin Laden. But Brennan made it clear on Thursday that the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) from the Bush-era played a role in killing the terrorist kingpin. Brennan said, “It is our considered view that the detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided information that was useful and was used in the ultimate operation to go against bin Laden. Again, intelligence information from the individuals who were subjected to EITs provided information that was used in that. Again, I am not going to attribute that to the use of the EITs; just going to state as a matter of fact, the information that they provided was used.”

What Brennan is saying is that he cannot pinpoint with any degree of accuracy that a particular form of interrogation led to the terrorists divulging certain information. That’s because nobody was taking precise notes on when terrorist X or Y said one thing or another at any particular time in the interrogation process. But the record is clear that the EITs contributed to the terrorists getting to the point where they decided to spill their guts.

CNN, which is increasingly trying to sound like MSNBC, headlined the Brennan news conference as “Brennan: No Proof Harsh Tactics Led to Useful Info.” How can his phrase that “intelligence information from the individuals who were subjected to EITs provided information that was used” to get bin Laden be interpreted as “proof” that it wasn’t useful? CNN was lying. CNN gave the opposite impression of what he actually said.

Before he held his news conference, Brennan met with Obama and was probably instructed to finesse his language somewhat so that a certain amount of ambiguity could be left in some minds. CNN and other media tried to take advantage of that for Obama’s sake. Still, Brennan’s statement was a vindication of the Bush policy. That means that any attempt by Obama to claim credit for the death of bin Laden will ring hollow. There goes his foreign policy legacy.

These facts help explain the desperation of the media and why they have adopted Obama’s rhetoric on “torture.” They must figure that if they use the term often enough, many people will assume that the techniques were, in fact, torture. In order to drive that point home, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News used the Brennan news conference to mention some of the techniques. She referred to “waterboarding, near drowning, slamming people against the wall, hanging them in stress positions, confining them in small boxes or coffins, threatening them with drills, waving guns around their head as they are blindfolded…”

She could have mentioned the horrible deaths suffered by those in the World Trade Center or the Pentagon or Flight 93 on 9/11. She could have mentioned the 9/11 jumpers—the people who jumped from the towers rather than be burned to death.

But Mitchell didn’t think it was worth mentioning any of that.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper have been fixated by a phrase in the Senate Democratic report on “rectal rehydration.” Tapper called it a form of torture. In fact, it’s a medical procedure to keep the terrorists alive when they resist sustenance. Would Tapper have preferred that the terrorists be allowed to die? Then the program would have come in for even stronger criticism. This goes to show that all of this discussion is just another attempt to tarnish the Bush presidency and make Obama look good by comparison. Tapper said he was dumbfounded by the talk of “rectal rehydration.”

No, he was just dumb.

Obama, the Senate Democrats and the media look foolish and unpatriotic. It looks like they are deliberately playing into the hands of America’s enemies in order to score partisan political points. Obama has abandoned proven techniques to get information from, and about, terrorists and has adopted in their place a policy of killing the terrorists and their families through drone strikes that don’t yield any intelligence data at all. How on earth does this make any sense?

From an objective point of view, does a Hellfire missile hitting a human being look more or less “harsh” than waving a gun over someone’s head, turning on a drill, or pouring water on a terrorist?

The answer should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. But most of our media are so determined to save Obama’s presidency that they can’t think clearly.

The Post and other media are desperate to construct a “legacy” for America’s first black president. The real concern should be saving the country, not Obama’s presidency.

12/13/14

Feinstein ‘Torture Report’ outs C. Martel as Islamophobe

By: Komissar al-Blogunov
The People’s Cube

User avatar

Diane Feinstein’s recently released report on controversial CIA interrogation practices indicts, not only the Bush administration, but also all previous administrations going back to the controversial leader of the Franks, Charles Martel, and his victory over the moderate Muslim community at Tours in 732 AD, which can only be described as a gross law enforcement misconduct and hate crime.

Citing inside information from medieval Latin and Arabic sources, the report prepared by Feinstein’s staffers details a shocking degree of intolerance and Islamophobia on the part of Charles Martel’s administration and the army of Franks, who countered the peaceful expansion of moderate Muslims into Europe via Spain with such violent hatred that historians suspect could only be explained by racist motives.

“Clearly this was racial profiling on part of the Frankish administration,” determined Yale historian Dr. Hussein al-Isis. “Franks and other white Europeans were simply uncomfortable around brown Middle Easterners, no matter how harmless their intentions.”

While mostly white contemporary historians crowed about a “Christian victory over Islam,” understandably bitter and disaffected members of the Muslim community, victimized by Martel’s extremist policies, were compelled to fend for themselves while retreating through the Pyrenees shouting, “Hands up, don’t spear me!” and “Death to Infidels!” Through no fault of their own, villages were plundered and citizens killed by some of the elements within the otherwise peaceful group of Muslim protesters, who became radicalized as a result of racism and gross civil right violations.

“I was disgusted at what we uncovered,” said an indignant Senator Diane Feinstein. “Instead of empathizing with the Muslim community and hearing their side of the story – instead of trying to find common ground and a mutually acceptable compromise through interfaith dialogue and negotiations, the bigoted leader of Franks chose to kill the Muslim leader, Abdul Rahman al-Ghafiqi.”

“For this sickening display of barbarism,” added Feinstein, “he received the nickname of Martel, meaning ‘the Hammer,’ and has continued to symbolize the greatest threat to world peace and harmony until his title “the Hammer” was passed to the Republican leader Tom Delay.

“We have only ourselves to blame for this mess,” opined foreign policy expert and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul. “If Martel had not unilaterally meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, then there wouldn’t have been any of that blowback. The fact that Islam was spreading by violent conquest a century before the Battle of Tours is a direct result of Martel’s misguided foreign adventures.”

At a White House press conference, President Obama informed reporters that “I just found out about the Battle of Tours while watching History Channel, and let me tell you, nobody is angrier about this than I am. I have asked our outgoing attorney general, Eric Holder, to immediately investigate Martel’s activities, to get to the bottom of this issue, and if possible, to take legal action against Charles Martel and the Frankish Kingdom. We will not rest until we have a conviction.”

Nevertheless, the president did appeal for restraint. “As you protest, you’re probably thinking like I’m thinking: this is the result of over a millennia of documentable Islamophobia. You know, this touches me on a personal level: Abdul Rahman al-Ghafiqi looks just like Michelle with a beard. This isn’t just a Shia problem, or a Sunni problem, or a Sufi problem, it’s an American problem. While I understand the rage, the calls for Jihad, the desire to impale all white Christians and burn down their churches, let’s everybody stay calm and let social justice take its course.”

Meanwhile, protesters holding posters of al-Ghafiqi were blocking major highways in large cities across America, and NFL players were seen charging onto the field, then collapsing and shouting, “Hands up, don’t spear me!”

12/11/14

Dick Cheney Torture Report ‘Full Of Crap’ FULL Interview

Hat Tip: BB

Dick Cheney’s spot-on justification of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques on Muslim terrorists

DEMOCRAT LOON, Rep. Jackie Speier of ‘Caliphornia,’ says the CIA should apologize to the Muslim terrorists for torturing them

‘A LOAD OF CRAP’: Cheney Destroys ‘Torture Report,’ Calls It ‘A Flat-Out Lie’, Calls 9/11 Hijackers, ‘Bastards’

Dick Cheney: Bush Knew and Approved of Interrogation Techniques

12/11/14

Obama’s Endless Lies and His Media Accomplices

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Like the use of the word “chokehold” in connection with the death of Eric Garner, the term “torture” has been applied repeatedly by the media to the CIA’s treatment of suspected terrorists. These are examples of how left-wing forces in the Obama administration, the Democratic Party and the media try to control and manipulate the public debate in ways that demonize those defending our nation.

The purpose is to make the American people lose faith in the police and the intelligence community. But it is those using the loaded terms and language that deserve the scrutiny.

A notable exception in the “chokehold” coverage is Margaret Harding of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, who quoted Thomas Aveni, a retired officer and executive director of the Police Policy Studies Council, as saying about the video of Garner’s takedown, “The reason all these people are upset is because they don’t understand what they saw. People don’t understand what they’re looking at.”

She reported that Aveni, a police trainer in deadly and non-deadly force for more than 30 years, said that New York City Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo did not use a chokehold on Garner, but rather a “lateral vascular neck restraint” or LVNR. The difference? “People can’t talk when they are being choked,” Aveni said.

The alleged use of “torture” against suspected terrorists is another example of how the media adopt a term that doesn’t apply to what is actually being described.

Jose Rodriguez, the author of Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives, says the term “torture” is inaccurate and that the CIA received guidance from the Department of Justice as to what procedures could be used to avoid “lasting pain or harm” to the detainees. Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA’s Clandestine Service, defends the “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Rodriguez writes in his book about how Obama’s CIA director Leon Panetta had declared to the Senate that the program had used “torture,” though he had not even been briefed on it.

The media campaigns against the police “chokehold” and the CIA’s “torture” techniques remind me of the communist “Ban the Neutron Bomb” campaign of the early 1970s. The “neutron bomb” was an enhanced radiation weapon designed to counter a Soviet tank build-up in Europe.

Despite the name, the “neutron bomb” was more humane than conventional arms. Appearing at an Accuracy in Media conference at the time, Sam T. Cohen, the inventor of the weapon, noted that it killed people painlessly through radiation rather than a blast with catastrophic consequences. But the Soviets thought it gave the U.S. an unfair advantage and successfully waged an “active measures” campaign, using the U.S. media, against it. Distorted coverage of the weapon led President Jimmy Carter to ban it from the U.S. arsenal.

In the same way, banning a “chokehold,” when it is actually something else, puts American police forces at a disadvantage with the criminal element. Outlawing “torture,” when the techniques were not torture, deprives our intelligence community of procedures that can actually save lives.

When we examined Panetta’s fitness for public office, we found that he was an opponent of the “neutron bomb” when he was a liberal Congressman from California. Perhaps this explains why he was picked for the important posts of CIA director and then Secretary of Defense. He was susceptible to disinformation then and was judged as somebody who could “go with the program” of Obama to ban interrogation techniques that gave the U.S. an edge in the war on terror.

The “torture” controversy also proves to be a diversion from discussing Obama’s alternative—the use of drones to shoot air-to-surface Hellfire missiles and literally obliterate suspected terrorists.

When terrorists die in drone strikes, they yield no intelligence data because they do not end up alive in U.S. custody. Plus, women and children die alongside them.

This is supposed to be more “humane” than alleged “torture” of the individual terrorists, who survive the “torture” and then get fat at Gitmo.

Obama gets away with this because the media, once again, are feeding out of his hands, eager to take his line on foreign affairs when it is nonsensical and counter to U.S. interests.

In his 2013 remarks to the National Defense University, Obama acknowledged that “…it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in every war. And for the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, those deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred throughout conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Obama declared, “…America’s actions are legal.” Case closed. That’s good enough for the media.

At the same time, he said, “I believe we compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

Obama’s flimsy justification for drone strikes is a self-serving memo generated by his own administration. It purports to explain why killing Americans does not violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution for U.S. citizens accused of crimes. The memo refers to U.S. drone aircraft as “contemplated lethal operations.”

Apparently, however, wiping out terrorists and their families, friends, and relatives, is not something that compromises our basic values.

The fact that Obama gets away with this deception says something about the gullibility of the American media.

It was appropriate that the Democratic Senate report on “torture” was released on the same day that Jonathan Gruber was testifying about lying to the American people regarding the benefits of Obamacare. The Senate report was another form of deception, designed to confuse and mislead about what Obama has used in place of interrogation techniques of terrorists. Obama doesn’t interrogate terrorists, he kills them.

Yet, we are led to believe Obama believes in American values and practices them.

The American people would see through the lies if only they could depend on a media that would lead them out of all the deliberate obfuscation.

12/11/14

The CIA, “Torture,” and Obama’s Drone Strikes

By: Cliff Kincaid
America’s Survival

Charles S. Faddis is a former CIA operations officer with 20 years of experience in the conduct of intelligence operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Europe. His books include Beyond Repair: The Decline And Fall Of The CIA, and Willful Neglect: The Dangerous Illusion Of Homeland Security. His bio notes that he took the first CIA team into Iraq in the Summer of 2002 in advance of the invasion of that country. We talk about the “torture” report, WMD in Iraq, Obama’s drone program, Vladimir Putin, Russian links to Islamic terrorism, intelligence reform and intelligence failures.

12/10/14

‘The Architect’ of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Speaks

Bob McCarty Writes

While reporting on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence release Wednesday of its controversial 525-page report about the CIA’s so-called “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”, most news outlets contacted the usual inside-the-Beltway suspects for comments and highlighted polar-opposite views. The folks at Vice News, however, went to the Florida Everglades to interview James Mitchell, the man some refer to as “The Architect” of the CIA’s EIT program.

The 25-minute interview is worth watching, regardless of which side you find yourself when it comes to interrogating terrorists and suspected terrorists. And when you’re done watching it, you might be interested in my contention that torture might be a moot issue if not for the actions taken by a small group of people, including James R. Clapper Jr., the man now serving as our nation’s Director of National Intelligence (i.e., our nation’s top intelligence official).

Read more at Bob McCarty’s site…