Moral Courage

[akv]

Bush on waterboarding: 'Damn right'


Washington (CNN) -- Former President George W. Bush has stayed out of politics since he left the White House and, except for his own, he largely keeps the subject at arm's length in his new memoir, "Decision Points."

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey to air on Tuesday when the book is to be released, Bush said he is "through with politics" and refused to offer an opinion on the 2012 presidential election.

"I am not a political pundit. I'm really not," Bush said. "A lot is gonna happen between now and the nominating process." He also passes on commenting on President Obama, saying he wants to treat his successor the way, "I'd like to have been treated."

"I don't think it's good for a former president to be out there opining on every darned issue," Bush told Winfrey. "He's got a plenty tough job. Trust me. And there's gonna be plenty of critics and he doesn't need me criticizing him."

In the 481-page book Bush compliments Obama's political skills during a meeting before the 2008 election as the financial crisis was coming to a head. He also criticizes the performance of his party's nominee, John McCain, in the same meeting.

He criticizes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the failure of his efforts to reform immigration laws in 2006.

Bush takes responsibility for giving the go-ahead for waterboarding terror suspects, which has touched off a new round of criticism of Bush and calls for his prosecution. He says that he did decide not to use two more extreme interrogation methods, but did not disclose what those were.

Here are excerpts from the book, which CNN obtained on Friday:

'The choice between security and values was real'

Bush reveals the decision points that led him to choose waterboarding as an interrogation technique.

"CIA experts drew up a list of interrogation techniques. ... At my direction, Department of Justice and CIA lawyers conducted a careful legal review. The enhanced interrogation program complied with the Constitution and all applicable laws, including those that ban torture.

"There were two that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm."

Though Bush confirms that he knew the use of waterboarding would one day become public, and acknowledges that it is "sensitive and controversial," he asserts that "the choice between security and values was real," and expresses firm confidence in his decision. "Had I not authorized waterboarding on senior al Qaeda leaders, I would have had to accept a greater risk that the country would be attacked. In the wake of 9/11, that was a risk I was unwilling to take," he writes.

Bush further declares that the new techniques proved effective, yielding information on al Qaeda's structure and operations, and leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al Shibh, the logistical planner of the 9/11 attacks who was captured on the first anniversary of 9/11.

And if there were any lingering doubts or conflict about the use of waterboarding, Bush discloses that he received reassurance from an unlikely source: terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.

The former president writes, "His understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation only up to a certain point. Waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold, fulfill his religious duty, and then cooperate." Bush elaborates that Zubaydah gave him a direct instruction, "'You must do this for all the brothers.'"

Intelligence gleaned from interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and other suspects led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Bush writes. During a raid on Mohammed's compound, agents discovered more plans for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

Prompted by the discoveries, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet asked if he had permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding on Mohammed.

Bush exposes his inner thoughts on what led him to reach this decision: "I thought about my meeting with Danny Pearl's widow, who was pregnant with his son when he was murdered. I thought about the 2,971 people stolen from their families by al Qaeda on 9/11. And I thought about my duty to protect my country from another act of terror.

'Damn right,' I said."

Entire article at below link.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/...h.book/?hpt=T2

[fng13]

I think thats what qualified him to be Potus.

[Shar]

I miss him.

[echoes]

Originally Posted by akv

Bush on waterboarding: 'Damn right'

Love Bush Sr. & Jr.! Always have, and always will!

They kicked ass, IMHO.

Holly

[Richard]

He hasn't entirely disappeared...yet...at least as a target for the political wits...

"George W. Bush begins doing interviews Monday to promote the sales of his memoir, titled Decision Points. Literature was never his long suit. When the publisher first asked Mr. Bush to write an autobiography he said he doesn't know that much about cars."

- Argus Hamilton

But however President Bush is perceived or portrayed, the man was a straight shooter and what you see is what you get with him and Laura...and we're happy to have them back home among friends who understand them here in Texas.

Richard

[Masochist]

Could we possibly get the trifecta with Jeb running in 2012?

[Green Light]

Honestly, I hope not. They are good men but the are progressives to their roots. Any more progressives in the White House and I don't know if we could dig ourselves out. I'm not sure we can now. We've had too many in the last 50 years: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama (the grand daddy of them all). The only two who weren't since 1960 were Kennedy and Reagan.

That said, I think that the Bushes are good, honest people. Richard is right - you get what you see with them. They have/had their flaws. Bush 41 lost me when raised taxes after making a deal with the Dems (they said they'd cut spending as a compromise - they lied). Bush 43 lost me when his buddy, the US Attorney, prosecuted the two border patrol agents, Campean and Ramos and then refused to commute the sentences until they'd spent a year in solitary confinement (less than 24 hours before he left the presidency) and then stretched it out until March. Even though they were released, they still had supervised probation and fines.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Green Light

Honestly, I hope not. They are good men but the are progressives to their roots. Any more progressives in the White House and I don't know if we could dig ourselves out. I'm not sure we can now. We've had too many in the last 50 years: Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama (the grand daddy of them all). The only two who weren't since 1960 were Kennedy and Reagan.

QP GL--

Very interesting (and compelling) grouping, especially the last pair.

My $0.02.

[rdret1]

saying he wants to treat his successor the way, "I'd like to have been treated."

Considering how many times Obama blames Bush for everything under the sun, it is a statement to his character that Bush doesn't sling an arrow or two back. I think the fact that he does not says a lot for him. Obama's constant blame game is one of the things people have become so fed up with. I think Nancy Pelosi will continue to poison the Dems positions by wanting to stay as Minority Leader. People will see a wider chasm in the policies being proposed since there will be little middle ground. It is going to be an interesting next couple of years.

[akv]

Originally Posted by rdet1

People will see a wider chasm in the policies being proposed since there will be little middle ground. It is going to be an interesting next couple of years.

Yes Sir, that makes sense. Stratfor put out some recent pieces citing with congress in post midterm stalemate, historically presidents as different as Reagan and Clinton when confronted with domestic gridlock have turned to foreign policy to restore their popularity before the next election. Now that does seem a bit cynical to me ( Grenada and Kosovo), but their argument is the best way for Obama to regain some credibility before 2012 without Republican opposition, is if we successfully move militarily on Iran's Nuclear infrastructure, conceding there would be a lot of moving parts in that scenario.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by akv

Yes Sir, that makes sense. Stratfor put out some recent pieces citing with congress in post midterm stalemate, historically presidents as different as Reagan and Clinton when confronted with domestic gridlock have turned to foreign policy to restore their popularity before the next election. Now that does seem a bit cynical to me ( Grenada and Kosovo), but their argument is the best way for Obama to regain some credibility before 2012 without Republican opposition, is if we successfully move militarily on Iran's Nuclear infrastructure, conceding there would be a lot of moving parts in that scenario.

I think if he moved on Iran in the next two years, even the liberals would revolt. They are already pissed that he hasn't pulled everyone from Afghanastan like he said he would in his campaign promises, not to mention Guantanamo. That scenario may work for someone else but I believe it would be political suicide for him.

[akv]

Originally Posted by rdet1

I think if he moved on Iran in the next two years, even the liberals would revolt. They are already pissed that he hasn't pulled everyone from Afghanastan like he said he would in his campaign promises, not to mention Guantanamo. That scenario may work for someone else but I believe it would be political suicide for him.

Absolutely risky, but as folks have pointed out the Midterm results are perceived as a referendum on him. He can continue to appease and do nothing and hope the economy recovers in time, or if it doesn't he can try and pin it on the Republicans, but that could backfire. If his numbers drop low enough he may face challenges from within, since Hillary would love to challenge him, the clock for 2012 started with the Midterms. He needs to do something presidential and unilateral to get the country behind him. He can also claim Iran is on the cusp of nukes, unlike Bush's WMD fiasco, it would be very hard to pin him on this, since that statement could be interpreted in all sorts of time frames, the Republicans wouldn't say boo, and he could claim to reluctantly use force to protect America. If the Iranians develop nukes on his watch, they will rub it in his face, and he will look like even more of a sap. IMHO the complexities of strikes on Iran and potential blowback is no simple matter, but Barry desperately needs a win, and QE2 through QE5 aren't the cavalry.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by rdret1

Considering how many times [the current president] blames Bush for everything under the sun, it is a statement to his character that Bush doesn't sling an arrow or two back. I think the fact that he does not says a lot for him. [The president's] constant blame game is one of the things people have become so fed up with.

While some would compare the current president to President Clinton for running a 'permanent campaign, the White House's habitual casting of blame at Bush the Younger reminds me very much of the Reagan administration.

YMMV.

[Buffalobob]

W was a coward who was afraid to go to Vietnam and hid out in the National Guard and no amount of book authoring will ever change that fact. There are two kinds of people. Those of us who went and those who didn't.

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by Buffalobob

W was a coward who was afraid to go to Vietnam and hid out in the National Guard and no amount of book authoring will ever change that fact. There are two kinds of people. Those of us who went and those who didn't.

At least he didn't completely dodge the draft like his predecessor.