Wash. Post's Ignatius falsely claimed Bush admitted error in endorsing McCain amendment
SUMMARY: Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrongly credited President Bush with having admitted mistakes in the administration's torture policy and previous opposition to the McCain amendment. In fact, Bush actually said only that he was "happy to work with him [McCain] to achieve a common objective."
Writing about President Bush's change of course in endorsing Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would ban "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of all prisoners in U.S. custody, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrongly claimed in his December 16 Post column that Bush admitted having made "mistakes" in the administration's policy on torture and in his prior opposition to the McCain amendment. In fact, Bush, who met with McCain and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) on December 15 to discuss the amendment, made no admission of error, but instead proclaimed he was "happy to work with him [McCain] to achieve a common objective."
From Ignatius' December 16 Post column:
The strongest argument for the compromise McCain and Bush reached yesterday is, to my mind, a national security one. Bush realized that harsh negative perceptions of America abroad were harming the country. The torture issue had become the most noxious symbol of what the world saw as America's arrogant lawlessness. But to Bush, it was also a symbol of his vow to do whatever it took to make the United States safe. So the two most stubborn men in America, McCain and Bush, struggled to find language they could both live with.
I credit Bush for realizing that he had to give ground. He needed to do something on the torture issue to protect the country's standing in the world -- even something that he rightly believed carried risks for the United States. The man who famously never wants to change course or admit mistakes finally did both. In formally renouncing the anything-goes mentality that followed Sept. 11, he has begun restoring America's badly tarnished image.
Ignatius made clear that he was talking about two separate actions by Bush: reversing course and admitting mistakes. He did not say that Bush's reversal of course was tantamount to admitting mistakes. Rather, he wrote that Bush "finally did both." In fact, rather than any admission of error, Bush remarked how the White House is "happy to work" with McCain to "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture." From Bush's December 15 meeting with McCain and Warner:
BUSH: Senator McCain has been a leader to make sure that the United States of America upholds the values of America as we fight and win this war on terror. And we've been happy to work with him to achieve a common objective, and that is to make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad. And so we have worked very closely with the senator and others to achieve that objective, as well as to provide protections for those who are on the front line of fighting the terrorists.
McCain's amendment would limit all Department of Defense interrogations to techniques listed in the Army Field Manual and prohibit "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" against any "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the [U.S.] government." The White House strongly opposed McCain's amendment, and "had pressed the senator to either drop the measure or modify it so that interrogators, especially with the CIA, would have the flexibility to use a range of extreme tactics on terrorism suspects" [Washington Post, 12/16/05]. The White House announced its support for the amendment on December 15 -- one day after the House approved the appropriations bill with McCain's amendment by a 308-122 vote. The Senate had already approved the amendment by a 90-9 vote.















Torture and mistreatment of prisoners is strictly prohibited except when they're really really asking for it.
McCain's amendment would limit all Department of Defense interrogations to techniques listed in the Army Field Manual and prohibit "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" against any "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the [U.S.] government."
Of course the Bush administration will now agree to this. First of all, the Army Field Manual has been "updated" to incorporate whatever stuff they've been doing and intend to continue to do -- of course, the actual AFM amendments are classified, so I can only infer this, but I think we can be pretty sure of it. Second, whenever the administration wants to torture somebody but might otherwise be precluded by the McCain language, they only need to place the individual in the custody of a contractor or a foreign authority. They have no intention of stopping what they're doing.
Washington Post:
It's reported that the Army is forwarding a classified addendum to the new Army Field Manual on interrogation operations. According to these reports, the 10-page addendum provides dozens of examples of what procedures may and may not be used by interrogators, and it informs commanders on the circumstances for their employment.
I really don't understand how Republicans can still try to pull their "I'm so indignant and disgusted with immoral liberals who distort the facts" baloney on our use of chemical weapons in Iraq.
Republican Distortion No. 1 on WP: The US military denied that it used white phosphorous. Then it was caught lying.
Republican Distortion No. 2 on WP: After caught lying about not using WP, the US military said it wasn't a chemical weapon. But then it was found that the military itself called it a chemical weapon. Ooopps. The military tried to dodge this one by saying that was in the context of others using it against us - how convenient! Typical Republican hypocritical nonsense.
Republican Distortion No. 3 on WP: Republicans won’t admit they used phosphorous to burn people alive in “shake and bake” tactics. The pictures of charred corpses and admissions by former US military personnel put the lie to that one. There are also eye witness NPR reports of enemy troop buses burned at such high heat that the soldiers’ guns melted into the bus. This could only happen through a chemical agent like WP.
Republican Distortion No. 4 on WP: Republicans argue that the chemical weapons treaty does not classify WP as a chemical weapon. Not specifically, but that is because its use wasn't intended to burn people alive. In fact, the military used WP to target enemy combatants, including when it knew civilians were likely present in Fallujah. We used napalm, a very similar substance (WP is like the next gen of napalm) in Vietnam to burn people alive. Guess what, we all know it didn't work, it was horribly immoral, and it hurt our reputation to this day - a lot of people doubted us when we said we didn't use WP in this manner.
Republican Distortion No. 5 on WP: Runs like this. We need to use all means at our disposal to combat terrorism. It’s the same desperate, chickenhawk, short-sighted panic state of mind Republicans espoused to have their lawyers reinterpret the Geneva Convention to condone torture (another topic rife with lies and distortions, not to mention ongoing atrocities) and to spy on Americans without bothering to go through established legal procedures (the truth is just coming out and Americans rightly don’t like it). These immoral, low class tactics are wrong. They diminish America’s moral authority. They affect us negatively on so many levels: al Qaeda recruitment skyrockets as we play into al Qaeda’s characterization of us as a big immoral bully, our troops are at risk for torture, our genuine efforts to spread democracy in the world are viewed much more skeptically, competing countries like China start to outmaneuver us diplomatically, and so on. The current batch of W. Republicans are way out of their league. They drove us in a ditch in Iraq, among others, soon after they got behind the steering wheel for our Nation. Not surprisingly in light of their lack of willingness to acknowledge reality (even David Brooks says they “insult our intelligence”) many Republicans are still in the indignant denial mode. Bush is another Hoover who will drive Republicans out of power for two decades at least with his abysmal, immoral, corrupt and illegal policies. Good articles on WP at: [link to en.wikipedia.org] [link to news.bbc.co.uk]
You hit all the nails squarly on their flat little heads.
btw, italics are turned on with "< i >" like this and off with "< /i >". Leave out the spaces - I hope that showed up ok. If not - it's less than sign i greater than sign to start italics then less than sign /i greater than sign to turn off.
MMFA's instructions fail to make that clear.
Well... that worked well didn't it?
Italics on italics and off?
MMFA - You should check with AlterNet to see a better way to handle this - including the preview function, which would have saved me making these serial posts altogether!
The problem may have popped up with SAGRA's post which, I suspect didn't end italics. Maybe if I do it now?
Italics off?