John McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Torture

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Video at the link.

John McCain to Bush apologists: Stop lying about Bin Laden and torture
By Greg Sargent

This is getting really good. As noted below, John McCain in an Op ed this morning skewered the claim that the killing of Bin Laden vindicates torture. But just now, on the Senate floor, he uncorked a new broadside that is quite remarkable, taking direct aim at Bush apologists who are reviving this debate in order to claim Bin Laden’s death as part of the Bush legacy.

McCain amplified his case, and called on former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey — whose recent op ed claiming torture led to Bin Laden has been widely cited by the right — to retract his claims. McCain’s speech is worth quoting at length:

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

This is taking on the makings of an old-fashioned, barn-burning senatorial crusade, and it’s unclear if anyone of McCain’s stature is going to step up and make the pro-torture case. For all his flaws, McCain carries great authority on this issue because of his own past experiences.

It’s becoming clearer that despite the Obama administration’s desire to avoid relitigating the torture debate, this is precisely the time to do it. The emerging evidence is on the side of torture opponents: A careful and extensive New York Times investigation concluded that torture “played a small role at most” in tracking down Bin Laden. Beyond this, the larger dynamic is perfect: The president that has been widely derided by the right as weak for ending torture tracked down and killed the world’s most wanted terrorist. That’s a pretty strong starting point for this argument.

Republican Senators are apparently set to grill David Petraeus and Leon Panetta at their confirmation hearings over torture’s role in getting Bin Laden. So in addition to McCain’s increasingly high profile on the issue, we may soon see the popular Petraeus reiterating his opposition to torture in a high-visibility setting — after the Obama administration killed America’s number one terrorist foe. Gettin’ mighty interesting.

[Shroom Man 777]

What was his stance on torture during his presidential campaign? Wasn't this one of the things he flipflopped on?

Still, disregarding the messenger, the message is right, and good for him for strakking those Hypocritical Prisoner Convict Abusers.

[Simon_Jester]

Glad to see McCain remembered his guts again.

I wonder what we'd have today if he'd won in Bush's place in 2000. I really do.

[wautd]

The emerging evidence is on the side of torture opponents

Not to spoil anything America, but the civilized world already knows for decades (centuries?), that torture is both ineffective and cruel.

[Simon_Jester]

We know, we know; the people who like remembering things already knew this.

It's the amnesiac popular culture and historically tone-deaf sectors that forget.

[Molyneux]

Interesting how easy it apparently is to rediscover one's spine when the Presidency is no longer in the offing.
Still, good on McCain for this. Torture is one topic that both sides should have no trouble agreeing on.

[Rogue 9]

Where the hell was this in 2008?

[Raw Shark]

Interesting how easy it apparently is to rediscover one's spine when the Presidency is no longer in the offing.
Still, good on McCain for this. Torture is one topic that both sides should have no trouble agreeing on.

QFT. McCain was the one guy on the Right Wing with the moral authority to condemn this shit when it really mattered and actually be listened to by (some of) the base, and he folded like a lawn chair. It's nice that he's rediscovered his bayonette-stabbed balls now, but too late to regain my respect.

[Broken]

Where the hell was this in 2008?

Submerged in McCain's desire to win the Presidency he felt should be his at any cost. Still, good to see him come out and shoot down the torture enthusiasts arguments. As noted, McCain's personal history with torture gives his words on this issue a little extra weight.

[K. A. Pital]

Even if he flipflopped, it's good he "flopped" back to the Light Side. Because hearing torture apologism from those in power is cringeworthy.

[Themightytom]

Where the hell was this in 2008?

That was his initial platform until Bush started hugging him. he was the only guy who'd actually been tortured, he had all the moral credibility on the matter and he traded it.

I'm not impressed McCain, don't even think about running buddy you'll go down in flames after the Palin Incident.

[Rogue 9]

To be fair to him, to my knowledge he never endorsed torture; he just stopped bucking the party line while he was running. Good to see he's apparently come to his senses, but it's a little late for that.

[Broomstick]

What was his stance on torture during his presidential campaign? Wasn't this one of the things he flipflopped on?

Yes.

Which means I will never, ever trust him in public office ever again. Not that it matters, as I don't live in Arizona and thus am unlikely ever to have a chance to vote for or against him. But if he runs for President again - no, sorry, can't trust him. He's been tortured but wanted power so much he stopped talking about what was right and, yes, "folded like a lawn chair".

No, I can't trust a man like that.

[JME2]

Sorry John, but this is a token gesture. You showed your true ambitions and colors during the election and I no longer have any respect for you.

[Phantasee]

Sorry John, but this is a token gesture. You showed your true ambitions and colors during the election and I no longer have any respect for you.

I doubt this is a token gesture. It seems to me he doesn't have quite the same thing to lose now, so he can go back to being that Maverick Senator we all knew and loved. I'd say he showed his true ambitions, but covered up his true colours during the election. I can respect him for trying to be true to himself again.

[Patrick Degan]

It seems to me he doesn't have quite the same thing to lose now, so he can go back to being that Maverick Senator we all knew and loved. I'd say he showed his true ambitions, but covered up his true colours during the election. I can respect him for trying to be true to himself again.

Sorry, but that describes a man whose principles shift with the breeze. Would he again cover up his real principles for ambition if fate offered him another chance at the White House? He is coming out as the public anti-torture voice since it is no longer inconvenient for him to do so and gives him an avenue to strike back at the people who so thoroughly betrayed him after making him become a mockery of himself. Must've burned being Karl Rove's bitch for nine years.

No, McCain rates pity, perhaps. But too much has happened for me to ever respect him again.

[JME2]

No, McCain rates pity, perhaps. But too much has happened for me to ever respect him again.

Exactly. The damage is done.

[Lonestar]

No, McCain rates pity, perhaps. But too much has happened for me to ever respect him again.

Yes, I totally believe that the guy who referred to him as "The Gimp" ever respected him.

[K. A. Pital]

Why should anyone respect a person who has been shown to be a batshit crazy imperialist and a torture supporter when it suited his political goals? Why should anyone have respected him in the first place? What has McCain ever done to earn any respect? As far as I remember, the Hanoi Celeb wasn't concerned about torture par se, he was concerned that a breach of the Geneva by the US would lead to American personnel being tortured by enemies. No?

[Broomstick]

Yes, he has stated that - we shouldn't torture their guys because then they might torture our guys - but going by my recollections I'm not sure if that was in the context of it being one of several reasons, or the main reason.

While that position is better than "Yay! Hurt them!" it's pretty damn weak as a moral stance and indicates that he might well think it's OK if he can get away with it with no consequences. His flip flop during the presidential run tells me he's more interested in power than morality, so fuck him. Sure, there have been others of the same stripe in high office, but there's a difference between voting guy in and finding out later on he's duped you and knowingly putting into office someone with such weak moral fiber.

[thejester]

It seems to me he doesn't have quite the same thing to lose now, so he can go back to being that Maverick Senator we all knew and loved. I'd say he showed his true ambitions, but covered up his true colours during the election. I can respect him for trying to be true to himself again.

Sorry, but that describes a man whose principles shift with the breeze. Would he again cover up his real principles for ambition if fate offered him another chance at the White House? He is coming out as the public anti-torture voice since it is no longer inconvenient for him to do so and gives him an avenue to strike back at the people who so thoroughly betrayed him after making him become a mockery of himself. Must've burned being Karl Rove's bitch for nine years.

No, McCain rates pity, perhaps. But too much has happened for me to ever respect him again.

Who gives a shit about his principles?

A senior Republican has come out and said 'These are the facts from the CIA: torture assist in the location of Osama Bin Laden'. That's huge given the way conservatives are using OBL's death to not only justify torture but the entire Bush Administration approach to terrorism - militarisation, absence of legal process etc.

[SCRawl]

Themightytom's accidental post and its subsequent retraction have been removed.

[Simon_Jester]

Why should anyone respect a person who has been shown to be a batshit crazy imperialist and a torture supporter when it suited his political goals? Why should anyone have respected him in the first place? What has McCain ever done to earn any respect? As far as I remember, the Hanoi Celeb wasn't concerned about torture par se, he was concerned that a breach of the Geneva by the US would lead to American personnel being tortured by enemies. No?

It's not so much a matter of respect as it is that I'm always glad to see a person choose to be a dog rather than a worm. The lesser of two contemptibilities, if you take my meaning.

[Patrick Degan]

No, McCain rates pity, perhaps. But too much has happened for me to ever respect him again.

Yes, I totally believe that the guy who referred to him as "The Gimp" ever respected him.

That was a Pulp Fiction reference, as I had revealed after the election was over with. And as McCain had indeed made himself into whatever Karl Rove and Georgie the Stupider wanted him to be, the label fit. Know something? McCain wasn't worthy of respect then and he's not worthy of it now. Don't like that? Too bad.

[Lonestar]

That was a Pulp Fiction reference, as I had revealed after the election was over with.

Yeah, I know what your claim was.