Good morning, Netizens…

[Picture of Scheuer courtesy of ABC news, date uncertain]

Normally I stay as far away from the Right-Wing Nut Cases as I do from the Left Wing Nut Cases, as although both have their respective points at respective times, both are quite similar to a team of blind men assessing elephants. As each blind team member tentatively feels the tail of the elephant, they will determine the animal to be long and snake-like, perhaps even declaring it to be a snake, a poisonous viper at that. This morning, before I really demolish my disposable time with other devices, I found and re-read a transcript of Glenn Beck’s show, involving an interview with Michael Scheuer recently which incensed me. However, when I get that irate with someone, I nearly always stop and attempt to rationally understand not only what was said, but why.

In case you are not familiar with Michael Scheuer, you might examine the brief but fairly-accurate Wikipedia article on him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer before throwing things at otherwise useful computer monitors. Please carefully read his educational background, as he has what I would term an interesting educational background. Then he went to work for the CIA.

Michael Scheuer, stated on Glenn Beck’s recently:

Scheuer: The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it’s going to take a grass-roots, bottom-up pressure. Because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. It’s an absurd situation again. Only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary. End Quote

Oh? That is both an interesting statement, given Scheuer’s background, and one that I would imagine probably boosted host Beck’s ratings, which never really hurt for a lack of controversy. Were such a thing possible, if Osama bin Laden to set off a strategically-placed major nuclear device in the United States, would it result in the kind of revolution Scheuer envisions?

Yet another opinion, one which I hold, is that were such an event to happen, the economic and financial fallout which would follow such a fool’s game as a nuclear weapon being set off by bin Laden, might leave our country so weakened we would be unable to recover our position as a world leader for decades, if ever.

Which is it? Is Scheuer a genius or a fool?

Dave

Goodness sake, Netizens…

Oh, don’t get me started on Nancy Pelosi.

Today David Horsey takes on Nancy Pelosi, and this time it is her on the table to be tortured into telling the truth, if you believe certain conservative Republicans. On the other hand, Democrats are jumping into the fray stating unquestionably that Pelosi was telling the truth when she said the CIA never informed her about torturing terrorist suspects.

Who can we believe?

Pelosi is a skilled and gifted politician, of that you can be sure. In fact, anyone who rises to her level in the current political warpath is automatically suspect, in my opinion. In fact, anyone from the Republican side of the aisle is just about, if not more suspect. Historians will doubtlessly have a few years to write their versions of what happened in America during the Bush Administration and since.

Somehow I have the same eerie feeling that someday someone will write a different view of history where Nancy Pelosi is concerned with regard to the Barack Obama legacy.

Personally I think she probably was told what the CIA was doing with torturing our enemies, but calmly and proficiently “forgot” what she heard. Tighten the screws a little tighter guys and maybe she’ll spill the beans yet. That is the same philosophy ostensibly used by the CIA.

Dave

Good morning, Netizens…

In this morning’s David Horsey cartoon we see the logical outcome of an American term called “waffling”, which is further defined, particularly outside of the U.S., as “denoting language without meaning; blathering, babbling, droning.” In other sources it is referred to as “A repetitive response to a question.”

Both seem remotely applicable, despite the fact that President Barack Obama appears to be the source of the comments made about American torture, also referred to as “harsh interrogation techniques”. Does the United States sanction or approve of torturing U.S. Terrorism suspects? That depends largely upon where you get the answer.

Former President George W. Bush was not much better at answering the same questions as put to President Obama. In fact, according a National Public Radio program heard yesterday, the opinion whether or not “waterboarding” was approved by the CIA waffled back and forth throughout much of Bush’s term-of-office until some former CIA operatives no longer active in Iraq had no idea whether or not waterboarding was torture and, if so, whether or not its use was sanctioned by our government.

It is painfully obvious to even the most-tentative explorer that various forms of torture were used on Iraqi captives, ranging from the now well-known waterboarding, to hanging prisoners from chains and other forms of indecency under the Bush administration. We, as a nation, justified this because a band of terrorists had killed hundreds of innocents at the World Trade Center by flying planes into them. We, as a nation, justified torturing prisoners because Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld implied it was necessary to break the back world terrorism, to ensure Al Qaeda or the Taliban would never again strike American soil.

But was it right? My answer has been and always will be, “Hell no!” if for no other reason than the old axiom my grandmother once taught me, that two wrongs don’t make a right.

However, now that the cat is out of the bag, that we are now forced to admit we tortured prisoners of war, how do we, as a nation of laws, deal with the issue?

So long as President Barack Obama sits at that big desk, as Commander-in-Chief of all our military might and power, it is his responsibility to answer the questions regarding our collective past. It is now his responsibility to create a policy to address the past.

Waffling is simply not the answer Americans need to hear. Or is it?

Dave