The Deciderer

Oh, so it's out? Decision Points by George W. Bush is not only on the shelves but also a best seller on Amazon.com. Bush's memoir is described as a "candid and gripping account" of the "critical decisions that shaped his presidency and personal life." That's funny because when I first heard the title, I assumed it would explain who the hell decided to make him president.

But whatever. I don't think I'm going to read it -- not even the free Kindle sample. I've had enough of this guy, so I will settle for scathing reviews, video mashups, and exclusive interviews (if they include a handy transcript I can easily skim):

LAUER: Did you ever ask yourself the question, "What more could I have done," to prevent this from happening?

BUSH: Well, we just didn't have any solid intelligence that gave us a warning on this. We didn't have any clear intelligence that said you know, "Get ready. They're gonna fly airplanes into New York buildings."

Wow. He's still spreading that horseshit that there was just no way he could have known? Despite the fact that he had been presented with 36 Presidential Daily Briefs that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and that 36th one was actually titled 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' What more did he want? Bin Ladin to personally pencil in the attack date in his day planner?

But wait, there's more crazy:

LAUER: Here's something else from the book: “I could never forget what happened to America that day. I would pour my heart and soul into protecting this country, whatever it took." It took two wars. It took thousands of lives, American lives. Billions of dollars. You could say it taking Guantanamo and Abu Gharib and government eavesdropping and waterboarding. Did it take too much?

BUSH: We didn't have an attack. 3,000 people died on September the 11th and I vowed that I would do my duty to protect the American people.

We didn't have an attack? WTF? The Republicans are trying to rewrite history again and nobody is objecting?

Finally, here is the heart of the interview, but it's no surprise. In fact, it's Bush's most famous talking point -- you know, the one where he claims he kept us safe:

BUSH: We believe America's going to be attacked again. There's all kinds of intelligence comin' in. And-- and-- one of the high value al Qaeda operatives was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the chief operating officer of al Qaeda… ordered the attack on 9/11. And they say, "He's got information." I said, "Find out what he knows.” And so I said to our team, "Are the techniques legal?" He says, "Yes, they are." And I said, "Use 'em."

LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?

BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer., but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do.

LAUER: You say it's legal. "And the lawyers told me."

BUSH: Yeah.

LAUER: Critics say that you got the Justice Department to give you the legal guidance and the legal memos that you wanted.

BUSH: Well—

LAUER: Tom Kean, who a former Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission said they got legal opinions they wanted from their own people.

BUSH: He obviously doesn't know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book. That's why I've written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did.

No, torture didn't keep us safe. Bush and Cheney decided to torture for political gain, torture results in false intelligence, and the fact that we torture was used as a powerful recruiting tool for al Qaeda.

Torture is also abhorrent and illegal, despite what Bush's lawyers thought.

But now we have Bush's memoirs which should have been titled "I Approved Waterboarding," and might as well be used as a signed confession if anybody has the balls to prosecute.

Self-Incrimination

"I was a big supporter of waterboarding." — Dick Cheney on This Week.

So who's keeping score? Dick Cheney has confessed to war crimes on national television at least twice since he left office.

Andrew Sullivan reported on these facts: "There is not a court in the United States or in the world that does not consider waterboarding torture. The Red Cross certainly does, and it's the governing body in international law. It is certainly torture according to the UN Convention on Torture and the Geneva Conventions. The British government, America's closest Western ally, certainly believes it is torture. No legal authority of any type in the US or the world has ever doubted that waterboarding is torture. To have subjected an individual to waterboarding once is torture under US and international law. To subject someone to it 183 times is so categorically torture is it almost absurd to even write this sentence. "

And it's absurd that a former U.S. Vice President would shamelessly boast that he set these war crimes in motion. There must be some kind of good Samaritan law that requires all of us to call the police and report Cheney's confessions to crimes? We are all witnesses, and I suppose that is why I write this while knowing that, for the foreseeable future, nobody will be prosecuted.

Rightwing Humor

Right-wing humor makes me sad (if video doesn't show, click here):



When did it become funny to support and encourage torture? When did it become funny to drown a person? When?

President Theodore Roosevelt in his 1906 State of the Union address declared, "No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered." I don't think he was joking.

After World War II, we convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war... and I don't think we were kidding.

And I don't think we were laughing at Ronald Reagan in 1988 when he referred to torture as "an abhorrent practice."

Wait... I think I have the answer to my own question. It never became funny. It has always been abhorrent. Bill O'Reilly and Dennis Miller are two desperate and unfunny pinheads.

But this leads me to another question. Why do TV conservatives only host lame bullying shows? I'm not aware of any neocons involved in the art, culture or lifestyle shows. Could it be that they fail to understand culture? City Desk has some ideas on Why Conservatives Suck at Culture Criticism. One possibility is that they always define their work as Conservative, and then discuss art only in terms of their own politics.

Ahh... yes. Nobody needed to tell me that actually. I've been observing my own father long enough. You can't even mention Barbara Streisand without him launching into a gasping rant. Our family can't even agree on a movie to watch on Christmas eve because every star has offended his ideologies...

But then O'Reilly and Miller offend my morals. Hey, if the two of them can put together a jolly Christmas special by next year, I'll watch it, but only if they promise not to yell and be stupid.