In Which ex-CIA Director Hayden Mansplains The Skirts To Us

egghead.jpg

Former CIA and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden suggested Sunday that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) might have compromised the objectivity of a report on CIA interrogation techniques because she personally wants to change them.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Hayden cited comments Feinstein made last month in which she said declassifying the report would “ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted.”

Hayden suggested Feinstein feels too strongly about the issue on an “emotional” level.

“That sentence — that motivation for the report — may show deep, emotional feeling on the part of the senator, but I don’t think it leads you to an objective report,” Hayden said.

I dislike Dianne Feinstein, she’s an unrepentant hawk who supported every military weapon program and was unwavering in her support of Chimpy’s Great Adventure.

But there’s one thing I do know about her: she’s tough as nails. There is nothing emotional about her. I suspect that she pushed her kids out of the nest with gusto and relish, and so I doubt very much that her emotions have ever gotten the better of her.

So besides the obvious sexism here—and it doesn’t get much more obvious than this—it makes me wonder what is in this report that Egghead Hayden really doesn’t want released? That’s a pretty desperate fourth and forty play.

Could it be… torture? Let’s call it by its real name, not some weasel-speak harsh interrogation technique. It was the policy of the United States to torture prisoners of war in off-shore gulags beyond the reach of our own laws. Blam-blam and Chimpy broke every last shred of decency we had in the world’s eyes, and they continue to walk the earth free.

(WaPo via Crooks and Liars)

What Charlie Said X10

carebear empty suit and words blingee

Brother Pierce nails it:

In merciful brief, the president attempted to explain to the world why the self-destructive and mendacious decision of the United States to engage in aggressive war in Iraq in contravention of god alone knows how many provisions of international law was manifestly different — politically, legally, and morally — from Vladimir Putin’s land grabbing in and around Ukraine. Before anyone gave him a chance to be president, and throughout his unlikely rise to the White House, the president famously called the war in Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place.” It was the first stark difference between the president and Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary campaign and the clearest difference between the president and Senator John McCain in that year’s general election. It represented the cleanest break available to the country from the bloody stupdity of the previous administration. It was the seedbed for all the hope and all the change. The problem arose when the architects of the American fiasco were allowed to escape any real accounting for what they’d done in Iraq and to the United States. There was no public punishment, no public shaming, no indication from the new administration that it was ready to demand penance from the old. And yesterday, the president illustrated quite clearly the size of the corner in which his basic philosophy had painted him.

Go read the whole thing at Esquire.

NYTimes conveniently forgets…

Chimpy and the banner

Chimpy and the banner

…the root cause of why democracy isn’t spreading in the mideast.

Take it away, Gray Lady:

The images of recent days have an eerie familiarity, as if the horrors of the past decade were being played back: masked gunmen recapturing the Iraqi cities of Falluja and Ramadi, where so many American soldiers died fighting them. Car bombs exploding amid the elegance of downtown Beirut. The charnel house of Syria’s worsening civil war.

But for all its echoes, the bloodshed that has engulfed Iraq, Lebanon and Syria in the past two weeks exposes something new and destabilizing: the emergence of a post-American Middle East in which no broker has the power, or the will, to contain the region’s sectarian hatreds.

Amid this vacuum, fanatical Islamists have flourished in both Iraq and Syria under the banner of Al Qaeda, as the two countries’ conflicts amplify each other and foster ever-deeper radicalism. Behind much of it is the bitter rivalry of two great oil powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, whose rulers — claiming to represent Shiite and Sunni Islam, respectively — cynically deploy a sectarian agenda that makes almost any sort of accommodation a heresy.

Um, gee, I seem to recall not that long ago the so-called Arab Spring had Chimpy’s apologists claiming that it would never have happened without him…

UPDATE 1: Robert Perry at Consortium News has a rebuttal. It’s worth the read.

10 years ago today

Chimpy and the banner

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

…and of course Commander Codpiece was wrong again, terribly, tragically wrong. From invading the wrong country, to fighting the wrong war, to having no exit strategy, to, well, infinity.

In honor of the Chimpy McStagger pop-up book-a-palooza…

…we offer this reprise showing:

UPDATE: Great minds think alike: One of the Internet Blogger Hall-o-Fame greatest stylists and a personal hero of mine, Jurassic Pork also is calling Chimpy’s Lieberry a collection of pop-up books. Also, too: What JP Said.