CIA "tortured some folks": Barack Obama, John Brennan, Dianne Feinstein, George W. Bush, John Ashcroft

John Brennan had no choice but to call for an investigation. The Obama administration couldn't hold back the US Senate. It was also obvious that the hacking had occurred. It was decided that Brennan's best cover after he said the CIA hadn't done what it did was for him to be seen as calling for the investigation.

cia-liarObama knew what would happen before Brennan was credited for calling for it. The decision was Obama's, and you see him spinning the story to continue covering for John Brennan (and himself) rather than firing him instantly.

Of course in this administration, such a firing would be a joke. Barack Obama is a game player. He is always calculating and never simply doing the right thing, never.

How could Brennan not have known what had happened: the hacking by the CIA into the Senate's computers? Did his people simply lie to him? If that had been it, the whole thing would have been handled differently.

They're good at trying to cover their tracks but not that good. They're never as smart as they think they are. That's why they're sliding down.

As for the torture statement Obama made there, he did his best to make people "understand" those who torture people and those who ordered it and those who authorized it. Well, no. How Barack Obama discussed it there was exactly wrong. He should not have said a word of "understanding." That's providing aid and comfort to the enemy. He called them patriots. Patriotic about what, torture? The man is confused, and he spends his efforts on spreading it.

He wanted not to have to deal with the issue, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants us to believe that she was living under a rock when she was being supposedly mis-briefed about "enhanced interrogation techniques." Well, maybe I had overestimated her intelligence by magnitudes of order. She wants the world to know that she was stupid and vastly less informed about what the CIA was doing than most of us who were following alternative media rather than complicit. Therefore, Barack Obama can't, as much as he had hoped, simply look forward. Feinstein, unless she's much dumber than she already has allowed herself to appear, must force the issue all the way back to George W. Bush and everyone in his inner circle who, unlike (maybe) Dianne, knew full well there was waterboarding and much worse and that it was torture. Just ask then Attorney General John Ashcroft.

If Feinstein doesn't do that, then she shouldn't have started anything. Not only will she still not be redeemed, she'll go down as being as dumb as it gets in the US Senate.

Update, August 3, 2014: Here's an interesting article by Jeff Kaye: "Obama Admits He Banned Only 'Some' of the CIA’s Torture Techniques." Note this from that article:

An Executive Summary of that report, in a censored version produced by the CIA itself, is now back in the hands of the SSCI, who may or may not release it soon. The Committee has already decided the full 6000 or so page report itself will not be released for years (if ever), a cover-up of immense proportions.

Before releasing the damning evidence, they plan, as they always do, to wait until everyone alive at the time who could be prosecuted or do anything about it or was fired up about the evil is dead.

You'll also note the reference to the KUBARK manual. I was thinking about that manual before I saw Jeff's post. I was also thinking about exactly when Senator Feinstein is saying that she first learned about the enhanced interrogation techniques that were actually being used. She may be hedging over chronology and such. It simply seems to me that she was supporting the interrogation efforts without raising any concerns publicly while the rest of us were sounding alarms and based upon hard, open evidence.

Feinstein, of course, can still claim that her hands were tied, as in that she was bound to silence concerning briefings.

Frankly, I've never bought into that argument. I can't see where any US Senator is bound to silence when informed of illegality regardless of who's doing it or the rationale.

What's the US Supreme Court going to do, side with the President against a Senator when the President has done illegal things and the Senator has outed the President for doing them? If the court were to do that, it would be time to overthrow the government for sure. The Constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on because those bound to enforce it wouldn't be and even concerning what clearly matters most: separate branches and actually working checks and balances.

Personally, I think the thing is broken already and has been for a very long time (if it ever really worked at all).

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.