Kristol falsely suggested DNI Blair supports torture techniques
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Bill Kristol falsely suggested that Dennis Blair supports the harsh interrogation techniques outlined in Bush administration memos, while President Obama has "repudiated the use of them." In fact, Blair has made clear that he opposes their use.
On the April 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report, while discussing the possibility that the Justice Department may prosecute Bush administration lawyers who authored memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, Fox News contributor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol falsely suggested that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair supports such methods, while President Obama has "repudiated the use of them." Kristol stated, "What was even more amazing was what we reported earlier in this show, that Dennis Blair, the current director of national intelligence, in a letter to -- current letter to current employees, said, 'We acquired high-value information from the methods that were used.' " Kristol continued, "So, I mean, now we have Obama's own director of national intelligence saying that we acquired high-value information from this -- from these methods, and yet the president seems to think that they're so out of the question that he's repudiated the use of them and is talking about the possibility of criminal prosecution of people who wrote, in good faith, legal analyses which explained -- which distinguished them from torture." In fact, contrary to Kristol's suggestion, Blair made clear that he opposes the use of such techniques in an April 16 letter that was sent "to the Intelligence Community workforce," according to the blog of the U.S. Naval Institute.
In his April 16 letter, Blair wrote: "Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director [Leon] Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."
From Blair's letter:
It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort was focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qa'ida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal, and that senior policymakers authorized their use. High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country. As the OLC memos demonstrate, from 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.
Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.
Similarly, in an April 21 article, The New York Times reported that in a written statement, Blair said: "The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
From the April 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (anchor): Well, President Obama today explicitly left the door open for Justice Department attorneys to possibly prosecute Bush administration lawyers and policymakers who approved enhanced interrogation techniques -- or came up with them -- of captured suspected terrorists. That after his White House chief of staff said what he said over the weekend. Let's bring in our panel: Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.
Bill, the White House had quite a time at the briefing today trying to explain this.
KRISTOL: Well, they flip-flopped, obviously. What was even more amazing was what we reported earlier in this show, that Dennis Blair, the current director of national intelligence, in a letter to -- current letter to current employees, said, "We acquired high-value information from the methods that were used."
So, I mean, now we have Obama's own director of national intelligence saying that we acquired high-value information from this -- from these methods, and yet the president seems to think that they're so out of the question that he's repudiated the use of them and is talking about the possibility of criminal prosecution of people who wrote, in good faith, legal analyses which explained -- which distinguished them from torture.
Eric Holder, incidentally, his attorney general, said in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Al Qaeda captives. I mean, the idea that we're going back and even raising the possibility of criminal prosecution is so appalling that it renders me almost speechless.
Oh Bill, are you ever right about ANYTHING?
No. He's gop-ologist slime.
I'm fairly sure he spells his name right most of the time.
Uncomfortable? Man, he is even dumber than I trhought, which is saying something.
You know what's even more uncomfortable than being named as a torturer? Getting tortured. Sheesh.
My thoughts exactly.
And those who were involved in torture need their names plastered all over the media. They need to be prosecuted and, upon a finding of guilt, sentenced appropriately. If no finding of guilt, freedom.
Blair said it worked. End of story.
Actually, he said it provided "high value info", not that "it worked". He also said that there is no proof they could not have gotten the same info without torturing.
In fact, CIA and FBI interrogators themselves have repeatedly said that torture is NOT the best way to get information because people will say anything to make the pain stop, so if we really wanted the greatest volume and most useful intelligence we shouldn't have been using torture. Their argument that "it works" is not only ethically despicable, but it is flat out wrong.
It is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL
But..but..but...it worked! *stomps foot* *sniffles*
</sarcasm>
Who even cares what Blair did or did not say about torture. I certainly do NOT. I do not want my government to stoop to torture well used by the Nazis and the Japanese in WW2. We claim to be a Christian nation of laws and if the claim has any validity, those people who approved and encouraged torture ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Right now my mind is focused on Cheney who has bragged that Bush floundered on torture so good Old Cheney, who is also know as Bush's brain, had to step forward and push the torture memos. Who knows what the facts are but I do recall Cheney waxing long winded about how good we were at torturing stuff out of the enemy. So march him in front of the Hague is all I can say. Rid our country of this terrible criminal who even still brags about his part in pushing torture.
Amen!
It is NOT the end of the story. Robbing BANKS works, MURDER WORKS. Whether or not something works is the BEGGINING of the discussion not the end of it.
Keep reading there pov, keep those peepers open. This ( note this is fairly common in the real world ) is not a black and white situation. Blair also said, and I think the use of the term "bottom line" would appeal to your point of view,
"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
Here is the money quote "they are not essential to our national security" . I would argue that torturing/enhanced interogation is exactly the opposite of essential. The treatment of prisoners over the last 8 years has provided the extreme Islam movement all the recruiting material they will need for the next 2000 years!
Blair said the negatives outweighed the positives.
First of all, great panel: Conservative, conservative, conservative.
Secondly, the argument is steadily moving from "these methods weren't wrong" to "well, the ends justified the means anyway".
In a moral world the ends do NOT justify the means. When they move to that argument they have lost. By an ends justifies the means argument you could justify robbing a bank to take orphans to Disneyland. You could justfy murdering an innocent bystander if it saved someone you knew. You could justify killing a hundred people to save two hundred. It is a losers argument.
I don't know if I would subject orphans to Disneyland...
You could also justify the killing of nazis to save Jews, the killing of Japanese to save Americans, the killing of pirates to save sailors etc.
Ah, who ever said fighting the Nazis was ITSELF a bad thing? OR the Japanese. Not TORTURING them but fighting them. So in those instances you are NOT justifying an evil means with a good end. Either the means can be justified or they cant. To try to justify evil be saying it could bring about a good end is to leave morality behind.
If you know the panel you know that Williams and Liasson from NPR are frequently there, the cast is a revolving one. And the discussions that evolve from that panel are generally far superior to what I see on other networks.
Are you saying that Liasson is a liberal because she works for NPR? Have you ever heard her?
I suppose it is because Cheney is walking around the talk shows thinking he got reelected to something and he has power to influence policy. It wasn't that long ago he said he serves at the pleasure of the president and last I know, this president wants him gone.
I want to mention about Cheney, that he has always been the point man for them, on this "torture" issue... I'm sure there will be many who will disagree with me, when I say that this issue is being forwarded and provoked by them, but I saw this taking shape a couple of years ago, and it has seemed as clear as daylight ever since.
Now, I can't entirely explain the supposed wisdom behind what they're doing, but that doesn't change the fact that they're playing a game of their own choosing and their own initiation: these people aren't stupid, and if they're the ones calling the tune, then you can be sure they damn well know the dance steps.
The first time this was clear to me, was when they initiated this "secret prison" or "black sites" bullchit: they started that, they put that noise out there to bait people... one of the things this stuff does, is it tempts certain and real powers of Government (always powers held by Democrats) into clearing their present calendars of serious and timely business, in order to chase after these phantoms and ghosts, of "secret prisons" for example (and that's exactly what that bull was introduced to do, to get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigating that mishegas, and draw them away from the much more important matter of finishing their investigation of the false and falsified Intel surrounding IRAQ: that was the genesis of that "secret prison" crap, I remember it all very well).
The same thing reared it's stupid head last summer I recall, during the Presidential campaign: remember a bunch of nonsense about "erased interrogation tapes"? It was all the rage for several weeks... but it was all bullchit, intended to distract Democrats, in particular Senators, into investigations and hearings and maybe supeonas, and all about something they knew nothing about, and could never know about: as one, the matter involved the highest of security levels, and two, it involved literally NOTHING on tape, as the nonsense was about "erased tapes"!
Anyway, it is Republicans that have advanced all this detainee and interrogation and torture and "secret prison" stuff, as some kind of baiting distraction of Democrat's time and efforts, and Cheney has always been the point man on "torture", to appear at any given time in public, and from a podium start invoking and defending "torture", sending all sorts of Democrats into a flutter of foolish and wasted energy... all the while that more important things disappear under the radar.
It's true.
And the times right now are so important, with such important things on the calendar (Regulation is big among them, of both the financial systems and the environment also: IRAQ and Afghanistan both too: public health insurance: and everything CIA and DOD and DOJ is hot right now), and so all that stuff is disappearing under the radar, and for what?
Memos?
And the authors of memos?
What next, "secret prisons redux"?
You are WAY overthinking this case. There are sadistic sociopaths from the Bush era whom we have to put away (Bush number one among them). Otherwise the next 'conservative' administration will be right back at it. Frankly I don't know what to make of someone who feels that this utter moral catastrophe is a distraction.
Wish i could comment on this, and other stories, but our local cable tv company, Comcast , did a bang up job coverting to digital that covinced me the lowest bidder got the contract to build and distribute the digital box. Don't tyhese geniuses fir test the hardware ? I tried to watch the shows i so love but nothing but lines and farbled speech. Hardball was a total loss today along with the People's Court.
I went to digital with those same folks, but have had no problem with the box.
It's a Scientific Atlanta EXPLORER 4250C, and it's a pain to reboot the thing if there's been a power outage or if it's been unplugged, but I always manage to figure out the sequence to bringing it back up, and otherwise unless it's been powered down, it's completely trouble free. The onscreen ability to access complete TV listings w/o switching channels, and the library of Free Movies they offer, makes the box easily worth the trouble I think.
I'd say that right now the single political power that Republicans have available to them, is this power of the Republican media.
Think about it: who on that side of the aisle is the Republican spokesman, or leader of their party... who is advancing their agenda... and perhaps it would be better to ask, who on their side is opposing the Democrat's agenda (it is perhaps better to ask it that way, because Republicans seem at present not to have any agenda to advance, outside of opposing the agenda of Democrats)...
The answer to every one of those questions is NOT any Republican in the House or the Senate or even in any Statehouse (think about it), but is in fact any number of Republicans in the MEDIA!
Think about them: newt gingrich, not an elected or even appointed official, but a media hack... rush limbaugh, media hack... hannity and savage and kristol (above) and cavuto, all media hacks... and even jerks I'd never heard of before, like kudlow and kramer, media hack wannabes!
Think about it, and see if you don't agree: the only real political power the Republican party has right now, is the power of the privately owned political tool they possess, the media... and the only spokespersons or other operatives they are presently employing, are media hacks... no?
Yes.
And I'm typing this out and straining against harsh words and overly critical language, to point out this fact: that Democrats are at present being played by this Republican media!
They're being bedeviled and bewitched and distracted and deflected and annoyed and provoked and baited by the Republican media, and by no other named official elected or appointed Republican that I can think of!
And this bullchit "torture memo" nonsense is at present that Republican media's bait held out to Democrats... a bait that I believe some number of idiot Democrats in Congress are poised to take (I told you I'm straining against harsh words), baiting those idiots into calling for investigations, and holding hearings, and talking about prosecutions...
And all for what?
To make for every appearance of opposing Law enforcement and opposing the tactics (whatever they may be) employed to fight "terror" (whatever that may be), that's what... and to oppose the CIA (who are now under the authority of President Obama, not Bush), and oppose who knows who else, maybe the FBI, and for what?
Because of memos?
Are you kidding me, all this noise in the past several of days, and starting today too I can see, is about memos, and the authors of memos?
OK, screw straining against harsh words: I'll type it like it is...
These idiot Democrats in the House and the Senate need to get the phuck to work on the American People's business, of regulating our robbed financial sysyem, and regulating TAILPIPE EMISSIONS (Happy Earth Day Congressional Democrats), and advancing the issue of public health insurance (if they so wish), and any and all other important and current business I might be forgetting to mention: Congressional Democrats need to get the phuck to work on it!
And as for all of this idiocy about "torture memos"?
1. There's a new Sheriff in town, and he's on the job, and he doesn't need your help in dealing with the all-important CIA or any other part of our Intelligence Community, because frankly you don't have the information available to you, and besides, you're being played like neurotic fiddles by the Republican media, and you don't know your bass from your oboe in these matters!
2. George W. Bush is no longer the President, so quit acting like he was, by appearing to oppose the defense and security functions of the U.S. Government, just because you hate George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their former administration of our Government, because guess what idiot Congressional Democrats? GWB and Co. rode off into the sunset, and you're too late you lame idiots, you should have had investigations and hearings and prosecutions when he was in town... you're about a hundred days too late, and two balls too short! There's a new Sheriff in town, and it's not you , you idiot Democrats in Congress!
3. And stop being played by the only political power that Republicans have and are employing at present, the Republican media! Turn it off! Tune it out! And if you persist in this mindless and reactionary defensiveness to every little squeek and squawk from the Republican media, then you can drop dead too you idiot Congressional Democrats!
There's a new Sherrif in towm, and the CIA is his responsibility... Congressional Democrats have their important jobs to do (like regulation etc.), and so they should just get the phuck on the job and do it!
Memos? You idiots are all aflame over memos?
These guys are terrorists and they hate us, so I sure won't lose sleep that they were tortured. - terrapin53
There's no evidence to suggest that many of these people did anything to/against us, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time (in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc.).
Wishing torture upon people because they are terrorists, or that they hate us, is pretty bad, don't you think? Personally, I find wishing torture on those who have even harmed us is morally wrong. Remember, the Republicans want to keep driving home this message that we are a Christian nation - so let's act like it and turn the other cheek, as Jeezus said we should do; do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Terrapin53, I know you probably didn't mean it the way it reads in your comment, but this is an issue that really irritates me. Explaining away illegal, morally and ethically irresponsible and downright wrong behavior, as the previous administration has done, is just as bad. Anyone who defends this kind of behavior really should examine American values a bit more closely.
I never said I wished torture on anyone. All I said was I am not going ot lose sleep over it. The article on this thread is mainly about the info obtained from KSM and KSM is a terrorist. The bigger issue is that Bush, etc. broke the law. Now reading the senate report since my first post, they did some torture for political reasons to justify an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq. Bottom line: If you don't like the law, get it changed. Breaking it and not expecting to be prosecuted if you are caught is not an option. the innocents that were kept at GITMO and elsewhere is pathetic, but the last 8 years has been pathetic. This is what happens when you there is no congressional oversight of the executive branch.
It's not that we don't think that Terrorists don't need to be punished.
It's that the USA doesn't torture. A terrorist's pleasure or pain doesn't concern me in the least.
Suspected lawbreakers are not eligible to be tortured. Once convicted, they should be detained and punished. But never tortured by the USA.
Lulu, I never said they did not deserve to be punished. You are right, the USA dows not torture and we have laws against it. We need to uphold those laws and prosecute accordingly. Few of these posts mention the mere fact they broke laws in torturing these guys. None of these conservative pundit fools even mention that the USA has laws prohibiting torture.
Its simple. "the end justifies the means" Machiavelli
The ends rarely justify the means.
Get a grip.
Isn't this the credo of all Muslim Fundamentlist? We our just adapting to our enemies. If we saved American lives I for one say," use what ever it takes".
I have read the Prince and Machiavelli isnt in the least interested in morality. He was all about pure power politics. I AM interested in the morality and in a moral world the ends do NOT justify the means. So it is no where near simple
Solon here's a thought. You worry about American morality and let the C.I.A. worry about American mortality.
I was just about to post the exact same thoughts. Kristol was precise and accurate with his reporting. In fact, I am probably in agreement with Dennis Blair. I suspect that torture works but I don't care and believe we shouldn't do it anyway. Many torture critics hide behind this unsupported and quite frankly non-sensical idea that torture gives interrogators only garbage information. Obama is doing it too, and that's what Kristol pointed out and criticized. Torture critics need to make their arguments on purely moral grounds, since this is fundamentally a moral issue. They're going to end up losing the argument if they resort to specious claims of ineffectiveness.
In his attempt to deceive, Kristol tried to avoid crossing the line of outright dishonesty, but he failed. When he said,
Kristol wanted to create the false impression that Blair and Obama are at odds over the issue.
In his attempt to deceive, Craig tried to avoid crossing the line of outright dishonesty, but he failed. When he said,
Craig wanted to create the false impression that Kristol wanted to create the false impression that Blair and Obama are at odds over the issue.
It is without question and undisputedly true beyond any reasonable doubt that Kristol only wanted to point out that the president is taking an extreme position by unreservedly repudiating interrogation methods that his own intelligence director believes to have been effective. Any other interpretation of Kristol's comments is a lie of galactic proportions.
See FL, here we have someone who fell for the lie you claim Kristol didn't make.
Just for fun SM, what do you think the difference is between Obama's "extreme position" and Blair's? Has Obama said there was no valuable information obtained from harsh interrogations? Has Blair said we should continue to use them?
Craig, you really need to take a course in logical reasoning. Perhaps you can take it along with the editors at MediaMatters.
My own position is that at least one of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e. waterboarding) qualifies as torture, and that the US should have a clear policy of not torturing anybody. However, this is a position based in morality. The only legitimate argument against torture that makes sense to me is the moral one. Arguments based on efficacy are very shallow and border on absurdity. They are also, IMHO, cowardly.
Obama's stated position, which I believe he has taken for political reasons, is that torture doesn't work and/or torture doesn't make us safer. This is in addition to his moral concerns about torture, but he really does frame the issue as one of pragmatism (as he does all issues). I think that Dennis Blair does believe that torture will extract more information from prisoners and faster than you would get through other means, but that the gain in our safety is not worth the damage to our conciences. If that is his position, then I agree with it.
Kristol's underlying point is that Obama is very loath to admit that the CIA extracted useful information via "enhanced" interrogation methods because then he would have also to admit that the new moratorium on such methods is jeopardizing our safety (and the political ramifications could be extreme if the US were hit again). I think Obama is being more than just a bit weasely here, and I wish that he were more forthright and courageous in taking a moral stand. But then again that would be quite a change for him, wouldn't it?