In his wildest dreams, Lewis Carroll could not have invented this. All confusion worse confounded:
The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Source ~ McClatchy.
So this was done:
to justify this?
Yes, according to a report from McClatchy Newspapers, that is exactly right:
Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush's quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.
Source ~ McClatchy.
For years, we heard the former President of the United States claim that "we do not torture." More recently, we've heard the former Vice President of the United States claim that "torture works" and that there are "reports" somewhere that show how. (As to that meretricious bit of nonsense, please see this diary by StuHunter.)
Works for whom, Mr. Vice President? Explain, please, how violating the Geneva Conventions, providing an advertising tool for anti-American terrorists, and simply behaving in an immoral, illegal and completely unAmerican way -- behaving as though the United States of America was a rogue state -- helped this country.
In this "interview" (there are other words I could use for this, but . . . ) the former Vice President says that he is not worried (and never worried) about "the way we've been perceived overseas" and opines that "I don't think we've got much to apologize for." All by way of slamming President Obama with the back of his hand as being "weak."
Weakness apparently meaning not willing to violate international law, invade sovereign countries or engage in illegal torture.
On July 4th, this great nation will celebrate its 233rd birthday. It's the 21st century. I am 52 years old.
And I'm reading tonight that my government engaged in torture in order to find evidence for an indefensible foreign policy that has resulted (so far) in the deaths of 4,274 American military, the serious woundings of more than 31,000 other military, the deaths of at least 200,000 Iraqis (if not many multiples of that horrifying number), and a cost to the American taxpayers of $900 billion.
And Dick Cheney is all over President Obama for being "weak."
Because "strength," apparently, is torturing people held in chains, violating international law, and bankrupting our moral standing throughout the world. All to justify an illegal and immoral war that never should have been launched in the first place.
And I thought the rationale for torture was "keeping us safe." Silly me.
(NOTE: If you have not read Meteor Blades' front-page post on this yet, skip this diary and head on over there. Right now.)