Courting Disaster: The Truth About The CIA Interrogation Program

We’ve heard a lot of discussion in the past few years about the CIA interrogation program and its use for national security. Cases have been made for and against the program, and there is a lot of bad information that has been reported and used to criticize it.

Marc Thiessen was given the opportunity to read top secret information about the program to write a speech for President Bush explaining its use. The results of his research are laid out in Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack.

Courting Disaster is the most comprehensive evaluation of the interrogation methods used by the CIA. Thiessen addresses the main arguments and charges against the program offered by critics like Jane Mayer. He examines the historical use of brutal interrogation techniques that are often discussed in comparison to the CIA techniques, and he explains not only how different the techniques truly are, but also the true intent and effects of those techniques.

What Thiessen notes is that the interrogation techniques were carefully designed to cater to jihadist goals of resisting interrogation to a point, after which they are religiously justified to break. The techniques help put the jihadists in a state of cooperation, when information is then gathered.

Thiessen also chronicles how much of the information compiled in the interrogation program lead to the capture of other terrorists and prevented terrorist plots from being carried out. He makes a logical case to suggest that this information could not have been obtained without the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. Doing this, Thiessen makes a strong moral argument for the use of the techniques.

If you are interested in the truth about these techniques and their importance, you need to read this book. It should give you chills to read about the success of this program and how President Obama has dismantled it. Courting Disaster is an essential book to read about the war and the policies that have played a major role in it.

Patriot Act Quietly Extended

President Obama signed a one-year extension for key provisions of the Patriot Act this weekend. This CBS report says it took no debate in the Senate.

This is another example of the Obama administration and the Democrats adopting a national security policy they criticized for years. John Ashcroft and others in the Bush administration were demonized by the left and the media, but we can expect a much quieter response from them now. We also will not likely hear the President explain why he has accepted this policy now that he is in office.

Chalk this one up as another win for Ashcroft, Bush, and company.

ObamaCare and Principled Liberalism

Ed Morrissey has a post at Hot Air that caught my attention. It’s worth reading, as it contains some accurate insight from Andy McCarthy and Dennis Prager too. The question is whether or not enough Democrats in this Congress are so principled that they’re willing to force through ObamaCare even if it kills them politically.

This is an interesting question, and the answer illustrates an important point. I cannot emphasize enough the wave of radical leftists that have taken over the Democrat party. That may sound like an exaggerated charge, coming from a person with my political beliefs, but it’s absolutely true. I’ve watched these liberals take over the Democrat party, and now the country. One strong signal that the new wave had come to town was when Henry Waxman ousted John Dingell in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Another was Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker of the House.

These people are far from the mainstream of this country. They are not moderately left, they are quintessential liberals. They believe that America is the source of the world’s problems, and that government elites must try to make up for the imbalances and injustices of the world. They believe in some form of Marxism and redistribution, whether that’s through taxes or energy regulation. They are hostile to businesses, and they despise efforts by those outside of their circles and not under their control to gain wealth. They believe that interpretation of  the Constitution must adapt to today’s trends. They’ll sacrifice their own party if they have to in order to remake this country.

I’ve been daring the Democrats to try to jam through ObamaCare after Massachusetts because I don’t think they have the votes, and I anticipate such a partisan push will significantly hurt them politically. That said, I can almost guarantee you that the liberal leadership running this country will not give up. I agree with Morrissey, McCarthy, and Prager about that.

The question is whether or not enough of the Democrat party will go along with them. I don’t believe so (meaning not all Democrats fit the description I offered above), but we still need to continue to communicate the dangers of liberal policies, and present viable alternatives. If we lose the argument over debates like what caused the economic collapse, these liberals could take advantage and push their massive agenda. If you don’t yet believe that their agenda is far from moderate, you will if they pass it and we have to endure it.

UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi helps make the point by encouraging members of Congress to push through ObamaCare, even if it means sacrificing political careers. I respect her stand on principle, and a beautiful part of Democracy is that voters can choose which principles they want to vote for. I submit that Speaker Pelosi does not represent the majority of American opinion.

UPDATE 2: Peter Wehner has good commentary about Pelosi’s stance:

The acid test on these matters is always the wisdom of the act itself. Insisting on political courage from Members of Congress on behalf of a legislative monstrosity would be unwise, whereas insisting on political courage from Members of Congress on behalf of a piece of legislation that advances the common good would be commendable. Since I consider ObamaCare to fit in the former category, I naturally believe what Nancy Pelosi is asking her caucus to do is politically insane. Why issue political death warrants to your allies in behalf of a terrible idea? But her broader point, which is that self-perpetuation in Congress is should not be the lawmaker’s primary concern, strikes me as quite right — and since she believes that nationalization of health care is in the public interest, her argument is understandable.

As Wehner points out, the difference between the liberal stance on healthcare and Bush’s stance on the war comes down to whether or not the unpopular policy is truly in the best interest of the country. As John McCain said, it’s better to lose a campaign than to lose a war.

The Healthcare Summit Farce

If you’re a policy wonk, then Thursday’s healthcare summit was probably boring and disappointing for you. There was little or nothing new for you in the purely political summit. Republicans almost had to attend to avoid a partisan label and to show that they indeed have real concerns and ideas about healthcare reform. Democrats never had any intention of making any legislative progress.

So we had a dog and pony show, which the Republicans effectively “won” by simply not hurting themselves. The Democrats and President Obama are in the late rounds of a fight they cannot win by decision. They needed a knockout, and they didn’t even come close, despite what some of the media spin doctors and David Brooks say.

If you are surprised to hear that Republicans actually have healthcare ideas and agree that reform is needed, then please watch or listen to the summit replays. I’ve added some highlight clips below. Otherwise, don’t bother. I can describe what happened rather simply.

Republicans offered concerns about ObamaCare expressed by Americans for the last year, and presented some ideas of their own that Democrats have ignored for the past year since they didn’t need Republican votes to pass their own bills. Democrats offered sob stories about people without insurance that did nothing to prove that the government needs to run healthcare. President Obama offered prepared responses to Republicans,  hypocritically (and wrongly) claiming almost everything Republicans said was political or campaigning, while ignoring the unproductive emotional appeals offered by his side.

If you watch or listen to the summit and conclude that President Obama is sincerely trying to reach an agreement with both sides, then I submit that nothing is going to change your mind about him. There was nothing Presidential in that summit. In fact, the President was reduced to a member of the audience that had to sit through that farce.

Many people are saying that the summit was just an attempt to paint the Republicans as partisan so the Democrats could jam through a bill via reconciliation. This is partly true, but the Democrats don’t have the votes. As an aside, I hope they do try the reconciliation process, because they probably won’t have the votes (thanks largely to Massachussetts) and they’ll kill themselves politically, but I digress.

The Democrats are in big trouble in this election year, and President Obama is in a tough spot. This summit was really an attempt to blame Congress (mainly Republicans) for “gridlock” that has supposedly prevented reform from occurring (we know that’s not true), while maintaining the image that President Obama is above that. It was all about him, like almost everything has been in this administration. The bottom line is that this administration must think Americans are suckers if we’re to believe that Republicans are to blame for failing to pass positive healthcare reform.

To further illustrate this point, consider the “compromise” plan President Obama offered, and the backup plan the White House supposedly has prepared in case the current effort fails. Obama knows his bill is probably not going to pass. His proposal was created so that it could be framed as a compromise and the blame for not passing it would be put on Congress. Ditto the backup plan, which is just thrown out there to make him sound reasonable.

If you are interested in watching or reading some clips, I recommend these remarkable moments compiled at Hot Air, and this exchange over Medicare between Senator McCain and President Obama (played on Hugh Hewitt’s show). Also, check out rising star Paul Ryan, and then tell me if you think Obama is more of a policy wonk than a politician.

Understanding President Obama’s Healthcare Proposal

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has a side by side comparison of some of the key provisions of the House, Senate, and White House healthcare bills. The comparison is helpful for understanding the differences.

Then again, the President supposedly has a more modest backup plan. I’ll have more on that and the political healthcare summit shortly. I’ll explain what Obama and the Democrats are really up to.

George Will’s Fantastic CPAC Speech

I recently linked George Will’s column on the Democrats’ “Dependency Agenda,” and Will expands on that column in his intelligent CPAC speech. Will is not as animated as Glenn Beck, nor is he as flashy as President Obama, but he presents a clear vision for the country and articulates the contrasts between the conservative and liberal viewpoints.

This may have been the best speech given at CPAC this year.

The New Pakistan Effort and Terror Policies

When news of the capture of the Taliban’s number two broke, I was cautiously optimistic. We’ve since learned of the capture of the Taliban shadow governor of Kunduz and of the shadow governor in Baghlan province. The news of captures and arrests has many people wondering what is going on.

The WaPo says that Obama administration’s pressure on Pakistan is behind the new cooperation, but I remain skeptical. Why the change of heart from Pakistan?

Pakistan’s decision to go after the Afghan Taliban leadership reflects a quiet shift underway since last fall, said officials from both countries, who cited a November letter from President Obama to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari as a turning point.

The letter, which was hand-delivered by U.S. national security adviser James L. Jones, offered additional military and economic assistance and help easing tensions with India, a bitter enemy of Pakistan. With U.S. facilitation, the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers have agreed to meet next week, the first high-level talks between the two countries since terrorist attacks in Mumbai in late 2008.

The letter also included an unusually blunt warning that Pakistan’s use of insurgent groups to pursue its policy goals would no longer be tolerated. The letter’s delivery followed the completion of a White House strategy review in which the administration concluded that stepped-up efforts in Afghanistan would not succeed without improved cooperation from Pakistan.

In explaining Pakistan’s shift, sources also cited regular visits to Pakistan by U.S. officials, a boost in intelligence-sharing and assurances by Washington that a military push in southern Afghanistan would not spill into Pakistan. The United States also promised Pakistani officials that it has no intention of abandoning the region once that offensive ends.

What did the Obama administration promise Pakistan with regards to India? I doubt our offer was to simply facilitate talks. I also doubt that any threats against Pakistan would hold much weight, or that a promise to keep the Afghanistan counterinsurgency out of Pakistan would be enough for Pakistan to start rounding up Taliban terrorists. The most powerful and plausible explanation offered in the article is the one that says we promised not to abandon the region.

Let that sink in a bit: Pakistan might be having a change of heart because they now trust that the U.S. will see the operation through. Such assurance was crucial to the turnaround in Iraq, and is a major part of the counterinsurgency strategy used by the Bush administration. Therefore, if the Pakistanis are cooperating because they truly believe the U.S. will win the battle and finish the job, then they are cooperating because the Bush administration counterinsurgency approach is working again.

There are still some elements of war conduct that are troubling, however, such as this report that the Obama administration is mostly ordering kills in kill-or-capture situations. This allows the administration to avoid contentious detention and interrogation policy debates, which they also avoid by allowing Pakistan to detain captured Taliban terrorists. Andy McCarthy suggests that leftist attempts to “judicialize” the war are driving these decisions by creating negative incentives for capturing and detaining terrorists:

I contended — and still contend — that the leftists who were pushing for judicial intrusion into the capture, detention, and interrogation of enemy operatives were subverting the human-rights agenda they purport to serve. There are many scenarios in which our forces are in a position either to kill or to capture the enemy, situations in which both are valid options under the laws of war. In a kill-or-capture situation, capture is the more merciful option. From an intelligence perspective, it may also be the more advantageous. The underlying objective of international humanitarian law is to civilize warfare. Yet, I posited, by freighting capture with judicial second-guessing, rather than leaving the matter to the sound discretion of our professional warfighters, the Left was virtually guaranteeing that more combatants would be killed.

When some terrorists are being captured and given U.S. Constitutional rights, and others are simply being killed or are allowed to be detained by countries who won’t give them the same constitutional rights, one has to question the standards and logic behind the policies. It would seem that this administration doesn’t have a coherent set of policies on these issues. Concern for the inconsistencies should outweigh the optimism of new Pakistani cooperation.

UPDATE: Now Pakistan is saying they won’t hand over the Taliban detainees to the U.S. It is difficult to ascertain what is going on. Maybe these captures are just bargaining chips. Hopefully time will tell.

UPDATE 2: FOX reports that another major Taliban operative was captured in Pakistan.

Speaking of the debate between capturing and killing terrorists, Marc Thiessen poses an excellent question in his new must-read book Courting Disaster (which I plan on writing about here soon):

Why is it a morally superior choice to kill terrorist leaders and the innocent people around them, when we might instead spare the innocent, capture the same terrorists alive, and get intelligence from him that could potentially save many other innocent lives? (p. 204)

Considering the moral high ground that President Obama attempts to take on this issue, Thiessen’s question suggests that perhaps the recent drone attacks are actually not the morally superior choice. That would make the President a hypocrite for criticizing the Bush administration as he has.

DoJ Report Clears Bush Officials of Misconduct on Interrogation Memos

In another Friday night news dump, we learned that Bush administration lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos will be cleared of misconduct. H/T Allahpundit, who comments here.

Are They Really Coming For Your 401(k)?

Remember when we talked about the crazy proposal of shifting 401(k) tax breaks in favor of a new government-run retirement account? Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara say that the idea may be gaining traction:

BusinessWeek reports that the Treasury and Labor departments are asking for public comment on “the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.”

In plain English, the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.

They will tell you that you are “investing” your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.

Any such attempt should be emphatically blocked, even if that means being the “Party of No.”

They’re Still Not Listening

I’ll keep pointing this out to hammer home the point: The liberals in Congress aren’t listening to mainstream America. There are now 18 Democrats signed on to use the reconciliation process to jam down healthcare reform.

At the top of Drudge Friday evening is a headline that President Obama will release his healthcare plan in the next few days, and it is expected his plan will combine the elements negotiated by Democrats to use reconciliation. Expect a few throw-away items that he’ll say are concessions to Republicans, but don’t expect any significant deviation from the plan.