Conservative radio host Eric "Mancow" Muller decided to have himself waterboarded to show it's no big deal.
His response after enduring several seconds of having water poured on his face?
"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke." He added: "Had I known that it was that bad I wouldn't have done this ... I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."
Watch:
And remember: this was in a controlled setting where the victim knew he wasn't going to be harmed.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (31) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (65)You've got to hand it to Karen Hughes. She fights for what she believes in.
The former top Bush adviser talked torture in a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (10) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)For a while now, it's been clear that, as former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan testified earlier this month, Abu Zubaydah was tortured well before the Justice Department issued its first opinion approving enhanced interrogation techniques in August 2002.
So we've been wondering about the procedure by which that treatment was authorized. And it looks like a crucial new report from NPR may have offered an answer.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (14) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (27)There's little doubt the bumbling would-be bombers went far enough with the plot to demonstrate that they had the intention to commit terror, and for that they'll pay the price. But the whole tale comes off perhaps more as a sad glimpse into the lives of a loose group of aimless and obscurely embittered Americans than as a dire illustration of the threat of home-grown terrorism.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (68) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (30)OK, this really puts the nail in the coffin of any claims that those four guys arrested last night in connection with a plot to bomb two New York synagogues were some kind of highly dangerous terror cell.
Calling the men "amateurs every step of the way," the AP reports:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (37) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)That GOP effort to get a congressional investigation into Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to her about torture? Looks like it didn't get too far.
The Associated Press reports that the House voted by 252-172 to block the measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah. Two GOPers, Ron Paul of Texas and Walter Jones of North Carolina, joined Democrats in voting against it.
AIG CEO Ed Liddy, who was brought in by the government to try to stabilize the firm amid the financial crisis last fall, is going to step down.
It's unclear exactly why, and for how long the departure had been planned. Here's the key part of AIG's press release:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (0) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)More evidence that those four guys arrested last night for a plot to blow up synagogues in New York weren't exactly fearsome, highly-trained terrorists.
NBC4 reports:
The ringleader of the four-man homegrown terror cell accused of a plotting to blow up synagogues in the Bronx and military planes in Newburgh admitted to a judge today that he had smoked pot before his bust last night.PERMALINK | COMMENTS (28) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)When U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith asked James Cromatie (sic) if his judgment was impaired during his appearance in federal court in White Plains, the 55-year confessed: "No. I smoke it regularly...I understand everything you are saying."
It looks like we've figured out what Dick Cheney meant when he said President Obama has "reserved unto himself" the right to order enhanced interrogation techniques.
In February the Wall Street Journal reported (sub. req.) :
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (22) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)Here's something else that's noteworthy from Cheney's speech. He again falsely implied that Saddam was working with al Qaeda:
We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.
It's unclear which "Mideast terrorists" those were. After all, Saddam had for over 30 years been the leader of a major Mideast country. It would be surprising if you couldn't find that he had "ties" to terrorists of some kind. But Cheney's purpose in bringing it up is clearly to suggest that Saddam had meaningful connections to the terrorists who hit us on 9/11. That's long been known to be a lie.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (9) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (3)We asked earlier about what Dick Cheney might have been referring to when he said President Obama had reserved the right to order enhanced interrogation when he deems it appropriate.
Could Cheney have been referring to this passage from Obama's executive order on interrogations?
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (4) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)We were struck by one excerpt from Cheney's speech:
This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It's almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.PERMALINK | COMMENTS (21) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)
Here's maybe the most radical argument of an extremely radical speech:
And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
Here are some of the key excerpts from the part of Cheney's speech where he addresses torture. There are some obvious problems with all of them.
Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission."PERMALINK | COMMENTS (67) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (43)
Here's what might you might call the nut graf of Dick Cheney's forthcoming speech, which was released a little earlier:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
In other words, if you oppose Dick Cheney's approach to the war on terror, you're not taking 9/11 seriously.
You can see why Cheney would want to frame the debate this way.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (23) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (1)Another day, another indication that the CIA briefings document that Republicans are currently trying to bludgeon Nancy Pelosi with is deeply flawed and unreliable.
The Associated Press yesterday spotted *(see late update below) two clear new errors in the document -- including one real howler we're kicking ourselves for not spotting ourselves:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (5) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)So what happened with that failed plan to bomb synagogues here in New York City? Was it a serious, well-organized terror plot, or more like a repeat of the Liberty Six?
First, here's what we know:
Four men, all Muslims living in Newburgh, New York, were arrested last night in what authorities said was a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and to fire Stinger missiles at military aircraft at an Air National Guard base in Newburgh.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (24) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (9)Support for Nancy Pelosi -- and for our point that questioning the CIA's honesty isn't really too radical a position -- has come from a perhaps unlikely new source.
The Hill reports that Arlen Specter, the new Democrat who as a Republican chaired the Senate intelligence committee, told a luncheon audience at the American Law Institute: "The CIA has a very bad record when it comes to -- I was about to say candid, that's too mild -- to honesty."
We really shouldn't have to do this. As we've said before, the idea that it's some kind of outlandish and unconscionable slur to point out that the CIA -- the CIA, for chrissakes! -- can sometimes be economical with the truth is absurd on its face. But the Republican attacks on Nancy Pelosi for daring to make that claim just keep coming, so it looks like we're going to have to point this out:
Shocking as it sounds, the GOP hasn't always been so sensitive about harsh criticism of the CIA -- including leveling the charge that the CIA is being deliberately deceptive -- when it's served the party's political interest.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (6) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)We told you earlier this afternoon about how Rep. Pete Hoekstra, who has called Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to her "outrageous," has himself initiated a probe into whether the agency misled lawmakers about a 2001 shooting incident in Peru that caused the death of an American citizen.
And it looks like Hoekstra's hypocrisy goes even further. Think Progress points out that Hoekstra last night went on Fox News, where he explained to Greta Van Susteren that it's fine to criticize the CIA's performance, but not to accuse it of lying:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (9) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (6)The CIA has given another indication that the briefing document with which Republicans are trying to attack Nancy Pelosi is unreliable.
Yesterday, Rep. David Obey sent a letter to CIA director Leon Panetta pointing out yet another apparent error in the document. The Washington Independent's Spencer Ackerman asked CIA for a response to Obey's claim, and got the following statement:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (14) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (11)As they go after Nancy Pelosi over those CIA briefings, Republicans have been putting the burden of proof on the Speaker, suggesting that it's all but unheard of for the CIA to mislead others in government. But in fact, the agency is currently being probed for doing exactly that on a different issue -- and the effort was initiated by one of Pelosi's fiercest critics on the torture briefings kerfuffle.
Last night, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who chairs the oversight subcommittee of the House intelligence committee, told MSNBC's Ed Schultz (h/t Democratic Underground):
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (29) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (35)Here's yet another reason (as if more were needed) to doubt that that CIA briefings document perfectly reflects what lawmakers were told about torture back in the early days of the war on terror.
Almost every briefing described in the document -- including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that's directly at issue -- refers to "EITs," or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn't used until at least 2006* (see correction below).
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (50) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (27)Here's yet more evidence -- as if it were needed -- that that CIA briefing document that Republicans are trying to hang around Nancy Pelosi's neck is hardly a reliable source of information.
Rep. David Obey, who chairs the appropriations committee, just sent the following letter to CIA director Leon Panetta:
PERMALINK | COMMENTS (20) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (17)More possible evidence that the Bush administration used torture to get information about Iraq?
Back in 2004, the Associated Press reported on the plight of several Guantanamo detainees who had previously been held by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Among them was one Iraqi:
The Iraqi, Arkan Mohammed Ghafil al Karim, says he deserted from Saddam Hussein's army and was later imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban for two years. He says he was brought to Guantanamo in 2002 so that the American military could learn about Iraq's army ahead of the invasion of that country.
On Friday, McClatchy provided a big new addition -- which hasn't got the attention it deserves -- to the growing pile of evidence suggesting the Bush administration used torture to build a political case for the Iraq war.
The news service dug up comments made in 2004 by Dick Cheney to the-now defunct Rocky Mountain News. Said the then-veep:
The (al Qaida-Iraq) links go back. We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there for anybody who wants to look at it."PERMALINK | COMMENTS (48) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (36)

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
