Making it Personal

The most personally wrenching moment in the Oscar-nominated film "Hotel Rwanda" occurred for me not during the scenes depicting the horrific barbaric butchering that terrorized the central African nation. It was a scene during which the voice of American President Bill Clinton emanates from the radio. His declaration that the United States did not believe a genocide was occurring in the war-ravaged nation.

It's a powerful scene. By denying the reality of the horror all around them, Clinton's message essentially extinguished the hopes of rescue for the poor souls barracaded in the hotel. The world had determined there was no political will to engage, so it was simply decided to deny reality.

At that moment my anger, outrage and disgust at the inhumanity of the crisis was transformed into a profound shame. No longer was watching this movie a historical experience. Sure, movies about prior genocides, like Schindler's List were eye-opening and soul-wrenching. But there was always the distance of time. Besides, in most of the stories we are taught in our youth, Americans are on the side of justice.

Now, however, here was something I could not depersonalize. The comfort of time and distance evaporated in an instant. A man I had cast a vote for, a man I believed would do the right thing (especially when confronted with evidence of genocide), chose the politically expedient option. I felt dirty, ashamed. At that point, I became responsible.

Now, with US Army General Antonio Taguba (the one who investigated the Abu Ghraib crimes) revealing the contents of the photos President Obama has chosen to keep from the public, a sinking feeling overcomes me. Is another president putting political expediency over doing what's right? To make it worse, the potential crimes were committed by Americans against prisoners. And they were done in the name of keeping me safe.

Will They Listen to the Generals Now?

Recall the Republican argument used to disarm Democratic opposition to the 2007 Iraq surge? They paraded the military leaders, led by Gen. David Petraeus in front of Congress, the television cameras and challenged Democratic politicians to "listen to the generals."

Now that Petraeus has come out in support of closing Gitmo, will they follow their own advice? Or will Rush, Hannity and Beck pillory their once-beloved general to protect Darth Cheney?

"Torture and Abuse Was Counterproductive to What We Were Trying to Accomplish"

Dick "Four Deferrals" Cheney doesn't know what he's talking about:

Dueling Banjos

The media fascination over the past twenty-four hours over the Dueling Banjos played by President Obama and former Veep Dick Cheney makes it clear how difficult moving forward without looking back is going to be. Beyond the fact the chattering class has legimitized Cheney's tired and worn-out fearmongering (didn't Americans reject this approach during the most recent election?), it's clear that the absence of torture investigations HASN'T made it easier for the nation (or the Administration) to focus on the domestic agenda.

In fact, it may have emboldened the former Vice President to continue his crusade.

Denouncing the president's approach to closing Gitmo and ending torture as American policy as "recklessness cloaked in righteousness," Cheney continues his aggressive and unprecedented attacks. I wonder if his cage-rattling might be making some in the Obama Administration reconsider their desire to turn the page on torture investigations.

Ignoring that Face In the Mirror

As the nation's media has become increasingly distracted by the "She Said, He Said" Pelosi/CIA foodfight, I have one question: When did what she knew become more important than what was done? Lost in this diversionary storyline is the fundamental fact: America has endorsed torture. When a democracy allows its government to embrace the tools of tyrants and despots and holds no one accountable, we risk becoming that which we claim to detest.

The way I see it, our nation faces a fundamental question about who we are as a society. How do we reconcile the use of torture in our names?

Do we choose, as our president seems inclined to do, to move forward by turning the page without another glance? Politically, it's the easiest option. From the White House perspective, stirring up partisan rancor is to be avoided at all costs as the administration works to solve the recession, reform healthcare and address climate change. Focusing on the past will only undermine the agenda of change, or so the argument goes.

I see it quite differently. It is less a question of looking backwards than a matter of looking honestly in a mirror. Any path to health (whether as an individual, a family, or a society) requires this step of self-awareness. Its the fundamental first step of any recovery. If you view what happened as torture (as the Red Cross does), it's unconscionable to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "what's done is done."

If we choose expedience we willingly forfeit our moral standing internationally. It is outrageous that as Americans we are actually debating torture as a viable policy. A democratic society cannot survive if we embrace the tactics of tyrants and despots. By sweeping our sins under the rug, how can we ever hope to relight the beacon of hope that America once represented to the world's masses?

I'll use vocabulary the Right understands.

Torture is evil.

Evil is never justified.

Torture violates domestic and international law. What's so difficult to understand?

Failing to acknowledge these crimes committed in our names could rank as one of the biggest mistakes any administration has ever made. I make this statement fully understanding America's original sin of slavery, our deliberate genocide of the indigenous population of this continent and the long tradition of civil liberty infringements throughout American history during times of war and conflict.

We must understand this: the immediacy and scope of global communications changes the stakes. Failing to address this sin quickly will forever stain us in the eyes of a much more attentive world. The eyes of the world are on Obama. I expect his global admirers are going to be much more disappointed in this inaction than the "angry liberal bloggers."

As for Democrats who fret about the risk of taking our eyes off the ball and derailing the domestic agenda, I simply do not believe this administration is incapable of addressing the economy, healthcare reform and education while torture investigations are underway. This president's team is a hive of multitasking overachievers. Besides, the White House would not be the locus nor the focus of the investigation.

Might it threaten to alienate Republicans we need to enact meaningful reform? Perhaps, but a far different outcome may emerge as investigations proceed. We only need one or two Senators to move the agenda forward. And, I firmly believe there are a handful of Republicans here in DC who do have a conscience and are likely to become extremely squeamish in defending torture once those currently hidden pictures became public.

And why? Because it's becoming increasingly clear that torture wasn't used to keep Americans safe, as Cheney keeps claiming. It was used as part of a desperate search to validate the invasion of Iraq.

That sounds like tyranny.

Can We Afford to Look Away?

Over at DailyKos is one of the better posts, This is Us, I've read about Obama's decision to prevent the torture photos public release. I understand the fear of igniting the tinderbox that is Pakistan at this critical point, but preventing a long, hard look at what has been done in our names (and by default allowing Dick Cheney to frame a debate on the ethics and efficacy of torture) is a tragic mistake.

If karma does indeed exist, then America's got serious worries.

Condoned, Coordinated and Choreographed by Condi

"Let me be, let me try to be clear. The United States doesn't and can't condone torture." - Condoleeza Rice

From ABC:

"In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News...

The meetings were chaired by then-National Security Advisor Rice. The discussions about the enhanced interrogation techniques were so detailed, sources said, the interrogations were almost choreographed."

Rice again: "Torture and conspiracy to commit torture are crimes under US Law wherever they may occur in the world."

This is what she's condoned, coordinated and choreographed.



Visit CondiMustGo to sign the petition.

The Sunday Muse

Random thoughts on a Sunday morning in April...

An Inconvenient Truth: The Mother Jones has an expose on former Secret Service agents spying on Greenpeace and other environmental groups - including perusing donor lists, financial records and staff Social Security numbers. Another example of the Bush/Cheney anti-green and pro-oil agenda? Nope. This was going on during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Green Citizen of the Year Award: Royal Dutch Shell tells the EU - take your planet and shove it.

Deliver Us From Evil: When President Bush starts a sentence with, "Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people..." you just know the result can't be good.

Show Us the Money: The Center for Reponsive Politics reports a record-breaking year for K Street lobbying.

The (Greek) Gods Must Be Crazy: Nathan Gonzalez over at the Rothenberg Political Report ponders how political campaigns will compete with (and be shaped by) the Beijing Olympics in a 24/7 news environment this August.

Will She Stand By Her Man? One of the signature accomplishments of the Clinton presidency - NAFTA - is widely blamed for job losses in midwestern Rust Belt cities. This sentiment caused Hillary Clinton to distance herself from her earlier support as the Democratic nomination battle wound it's way through Wisconsin, Ohio and now Pennsylvania. Friday's New York Times observes the economic downturn could cause voters to re-examine 1996's welfare reform creating another awkward situation for candidate Clinton.

The Sunday Muse

Three Items for the FUBAR File:

1. American influence in the world continues its freefall thanks to BushCo foreign policy.
2. Anyone else thinking it might be time to apply the "Three Strikes Law" to Democrats and their dismal failure to stand up to Bush/Cheney on an Iraq timeline?
3. Today's WaPo is reporting senior Congressional Dems (including Pelosi) were briefed on CIA interrogation techniques back in 2002 and no one raised any concerns about waterboarding, making this week's call for an investigation into the disappearance of the interrogation videotapes somewhat disengenuous.

The Nomination Horse Race Updates:

In Search of The 'New Girls' Network: The Wall Street Journal reports on Clinton's difficulty winning over successful, professional women.

No Longer a Dark Horse: I'll say it again: Huckabee's surge in Iowa (where evangelical voters are proving once again they will participate in politics as one cohesive voting bloc) is bad news for Democrats in the November general election.

A Primary Contest: If any additional evidence was necessary to show the Democratic nomination contest has morphed from a coronation march into a true battle, there's news of a dramatic shift in South Carolina (where Obama is now in a statistical tie with Clinton).