Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President

 America in 100 days photostream - Day 4 in Philadelphia

President Obama gave an excellent speech in Cairo today but my ears perked up upon hearing a couple of specific passages where he talked about democracy.

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Are these just words in a speech or will President Obama's actions back up his words? If President Obama believes what he says in this speech about democracy then how can he say we must look forward without first addressing the crimes committed by the Bush administration? How can he think ignoring war crimes will give anyone confidence in the rule of law and confidence that there is equal justice under law? How can his use of an overly broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits and his suppression of photos that document crimes be consistent with the idea of transparency that he rightfully says is important? 

I agree with President Obama's speech on the campaign trail where he said - words matter. But words matter only when they are backed up with actions and so far I haven't seen President Obama back up his eloquent words about democracy with actions.

The idea that our laws require that we hold officials accountable can't be suppressed for the sake of political expediency. The crimes of the Bush era were much too monstrous and widespread to ignore.  It's clearly in the interest of our country to investigate and where appropriate prosecute those who broke U.S. and international laws. It's in our interest because it will help restore confidence in the rule of law and because it's essential for our security to show the world that we apply the rule of law even to our own leaders.  It's also necessary in order to drive a stake through the heart of the vile idea, that continues to be argued today, that torture should be an option for the United States to use. It's also clearly in our interest to confront and thoroughly discredit the dangerous unitary executive theory that places the president above the law because we can't afford to have some future politician repeat the destructive actions our country barely survived under the Bush administration. 

Holding Bush administration officials accountable under law may not be convenient for the political parties but it is necessary in order to have a functioning democracy. 

I hope President Obama will stop listening to his political advisers, who are only concerned with party politics and will instead let his own words from this speech and his promises from the campaign trail guide him in doing what is right for the U.S. and what is necessary in order for us to truly move forward.

We need true transparency, Mr. President and we also need a president who's courageous enough to stand up to the political establishment and demand accountability for war crimes so that the world will know that America stands for the rule of law and that the words equal justice under law aren't just words used in a political speech but are words that describe a principle our country enthusiastically embraces.

Protecting Bush's "Vigilante Justice" Erodes Confidence in The Rule of Law

1940 Street Scene with vintage automobiles and American flags

I watched an old movie last night called Fury that reminded me so much of the events that have transpired in our country since 9/11.  The movie Fury was made in 1936, and it starred Spencer Tracy and Sylvia Sydney.

The movie is about a man (Spencer Tracy) who is wrongfully detained by the police on the suspicion that he is part of a group that kidnapped a local towns person. The news about one of the kidnappers being held in the local jail spreads through the town like wildfire. After a group of townspeople get themselves worked up into a frenzy over the crime they head down to the jail to take their revenge. The Sheriff hearing that a mob is forming gets assurances from the Governor that the National Guard will be sent to help protect Tracy. But a political adviser to the governor convinces him not to send the Guard for political reasons. When the mob arrives at the jail the sheriff tells them that he doesn't know if Tracy is guilty or innocent and that they have to let the law take it's course. His call for following the rule of law is shouted down by the mob. 

The mob ends up taking their revenge for the kidnapping by burning down the jail where Tracy is being held. When news of what the mob did reaches the Governor he and his political adviser have this conversation:

Governor: Why the very spirit of government has been violated, the state disgraced in the eyes of the world by this brutal outburst of lust for vengeance and I blame myself. I let you talk me down. Why that mob could have been stopped if assistance had been sent to local officers in time. 

Adviser: Ah forget it, the reformers will cuss around for awhile and then they'll start cussing something else. These letters and telegrams backing up the statement I gave out ... congratulations 90% of them - (reads from telegrams) Finest things we've heard of in years - Congratulations. 

Governor: I wonder what sort of telegrams we'll get when it's know that Wilson was an innocent man 

Adviser: When I gave out the statement I didn't know that

Governor: This story is in every wire in the world right now....he then shows him the newspaper headline: Kidnappers Caught; Confess - G-men nab whole gang.

 

Unbeknownst to anyone, Tracy actually escaped from the blaze, but he's bitter about what happened to him so he seeks his own revenge by letting everyone continue to believe that he died so that the mob who tried to kill him would pay for what they did. 

The next part of the movie deals with the investigation and cover up of the crime.

When the DA tries to bring charges against the guilty, the town closes ranks to protect it's own. Political pressure from the Governors advisor also comes down upon the DA to forget about the case. But the DA is having none of it. In one scene he says:

I've got to proceed with this case as my oath of office requires.

In his opening statement the DA then  makes these comments:

Because the law declares that in a lynching all who consent to the design are responsible for what took place all who participate are responsible for the act. This may seem harsh but when a mob takes it upon itself to identify, try, condemn and punish it is a destroyer of the government that patriots have died to establish and defend. Every decent person in this country feels the importance of this case the nation is hanging on the outcome of this trial. No lynching can be justified though sometimes attempts are made to whitewash them by citing the confessions of or proofs of guilt against the by now silent corpse. But no one can dare defend the lynching of an innocent man, American democracy and its system of fair play for the rights of individuals under the law is on trial here ladies and gentleman of the jury. 

During the trial, witnesses lie about where the various defendants were at the time of the crime, in order to protect them because they are friends and family.  After they give their testimony the DA warns them that they will be charged with perjury because the evidence he has will show that their testimony is a lie. 

The DA’s evidence is a newsreel that captured the entire event on film.

When the jury sees the irrefutable evidence they convict the guilty. At this moment Tracy walks into the Court room to show that he is still alive, not to protect the guilty townspeople who tried to murder him, but so that he could live with himself and not let his own desire for vengeance destroy him like it did the townspeople.

Now look at how so many of the things in this fictional story from 1936 mirror what we've witnessed happening in the Bush era torture story.

When we were attacked on 9/11 most of our citizens wanted to get the people responsible for the attack. They wanted our government to do whatever it took to get the bad guys. They wanted revenge. But some of our citizens, including a lot of them in the establishment media, didn't just want to use every available legal method to get the bad guys, like the rest of us wanted. These people were so consumed by a desire for vengeance that they also supported what Dick Cheney called going to the “dark side.”  One of our national columnists even admitted recently that he still wants vengeance for 9/11. And there are other media personalities, as well, who demonstrate even now that their own thirst for blood has still not been sated by the events of the last 8 years.

Because a certain percentage of the people in our country had an all consuming desire for revenge they fully embraced our government's vigilante justice just like the townspeople in the movie embraced their own vigilante justice. And like a lot of the townspeople in the movie they either actively cheered on the lawbreakers, or they looked the other way while the crimes were committed. 

The political advisor in the movie that encouraged the Governor to make the wrong decision based upon political considerations behaved like many of our own political leaders who chose for political reasons to either remain silent or actively codify the Bush administration's illegal behavior into law. Even today a lot of these politicians are still letting politics interfere with them making a proper response on this issue.

When those of us who did not embrace this mob mentality challenged the illegal behavior we were called unpatriotic by the mob and its supporters, just like the sheriff in the movie was shouted down for defending the rule of law. Most of our establishment media also drowned out our concerns about the rule of law by uncritically repeating the administration's claims that it was only "a few bad apples" who tortured our prisoners and that those who claimed otherwise were using this as a poltiical tool to damage the presidents chance for re-election. As I recently pointed out, despite this pro-Bush administration narrative uncritically reported in our media (especially TV), we have some in our establishment media today who claim that the public was well informed about torture prior to the 2004 election. Daniel Froomkin also addresses this faulty claim in his blog column today.

As more and more evidence was revealed about the horrendous crimes that were committed by the Bush administration those who had never supported this lawless behavior continued to challenge it but our media establishment closed ranks, just like the townspeople in the movie. They began accusing us of being liberal score-settlers or saying that we just wanted to take revenge because we hated Bush. They refused to admit that a lot of their fellow citizens hadn't gotten caught up in the hysteria of the moment, like they did when they let their hunger for vengeance cloud their thinking. They pretended that it wasn’t the rule of law that we were trying to protect and accused us of just wanting vengeance.  What’s so ironic about them accusing us of wanting vengeance is that it was vengeance that caused them and not us to support our government’s vigilante justice campaign in the first place. And just like the townspeople in the movie, they are now willing to lie and obfuscate the truth in order to protect their own. 

Those of us who consistently stood up for the rule of law hope that our legal system, like the one in the movie, will finally step in and let the evidence of these crimes determine the fate of these officials, who thought they could replace the rule of law with vigilante justice. Maybe then those who enabled this mob mentality to run wild will finally face up to their own role and will stop trying to defend the indefensible. Maybe then they will understand the importance of what the DA in the movie said when he said these words about holding people accountable for their deeds:

This may seem harsh but when a mob takes it upon itself to identify, try, condemn and punish it is a destroyer of the government that patriots have died to establish and defend

When the President Does It, That Means It's Not Illegal

President Nixon at Inaugural Ball 1973 - Photo by Richard K. Hoffmeister

Cenk Uygur has a disturbing piece in Huffington Post today that provides quotes from a  Q & A session following a recent Condi Rice speech at Stanford. The quotes are a chilling reminder that the pardon of Richard Nixon had the unintended consequence of allowing future administrations to use Nixon's, "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal," as a green light for committing  their own crimes. 

Our establishment media personalities are doing the country a grave disservice when they advocate that there should be no prosecutions for torture. If we ignore the criminal behavior of the Bush administration by not prosecuting then this dangerous idea that the president is above the law will live on and be used again in a future administration to commit even more crimes. You can check out the Uygur piece here.

Quotes from Condi:

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."

"I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."

"The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture." (emphasis added)

Watergate's Lesson on Crises, Closure and Moving On

Curious Photo from the George Eastman House Collection, 1880

Gerald F. Seib has written  a piece in the Wall Street Journal today entitled Watergate's Lesson on Crises, Closure and Moving On. Instead of advocating that our country follow the rule of law, however, Mr. Seib instead seeks to join with others in our establishment media who have politicized this issue. 

In order to try to justify not following the law in the current torture issue Seib reaches back into history to point to another president who, when it came time for him to allow the rule of law to take it's course, instead chose to succumb to political considerations when he granted a pardon to President Nixon.

Mr. Seib says that history has vindicated Ford for his decision. However, in light of the fact that we now have another president who, like Nixon, thought that he too was above the law there may very well have to be some second thoughts among historians concerning the wisdom of the Ford decision.

[Snip]

The president's advisers insist that, though their party controls Congress, the White House doesn't really have the ability to stop lawmakers from going down that path, only the ability to influence how they might do so. The broader question is what that distraction might do to the president's agenda -- driving, as it would, even bigger wedges between the parties in Congress.

One who has dealt with that dilemma is Tom Korologos, a former U.S. ambassador who worked in the Ford White House on legislative relations. Mr. Ford, Mr. Korologos says, "smelled what could have been a horrendous Washington event" in a Nixon trial. He decided it would be better for the country to forgo that event. 

More than that, he adds, Mr. Ford concluded it would be better for his own agenda: "We were in the middle of an inflation fight. We were in the middle of a lot of international issues. It would have sucked the air out of a whole lot of goals he pursued." 

That is the danger Mr. Obama faces as well.

Below is a copy of the email that I sent to Mr. Seib last night and what I then posted on the WSJ site today:

Dear Mr. Seib,

Perhaps if President Ford had allowed a trial to go forward instead of worrying about his political agenda and worrying about comforting an establishment that wanted the status quo protected then we might not be where we are today. 

Maybe if President Bush and VP Cheney had seen a president hauled into court, just like any other citizen, then maybe they wouldn't have found it so easy to torture - maybe they would have thought twice about it.

Maybe now we need to rectify the mistake made by President Ford, in order to deter future executives from thinking that when the president does it, it's legal.

In addition, to what I told Mr. Seib in my email, Glenn Greenwald, as usual, has a spot-on piece today about how our establishment media and our politicians are inappropriately politicizing this issue

[Snip]

Blocking criminal investigations for political reasons is definitively corrupt -- period.  That's true whether Democrats or Republicans do it.  

[Snip]

Punishing politically powerful criminals is about vindicating the rule of law.  Partisan and political considerations should play no role in it.  It is opponents of investigations and prosecutions who are being driven by partisan allegiances and a desire to advance their political interests.  By contrast, proponents of investigations are seeking to vindicate the most apolitical yet crucial principle of our system of government: that we are a nation of laws that cannot allow extremely serious crimes to be swept under the rug for political reasons.  That's true no matter what is best for Obama's political goals and no matter how many Democrats end up being implicated -- ethically, politically or even legally -- by the crimes that were committed.

The Wall Street Journal piece written by Mr. Seib is sadly a perfect example of what I believe is our establishment media learning the wrong lesson from Watergate because they continue to focus more on politics and partisan allegiances, as Greenwald points out, then about vindicating the rule of law that would serve the needs of the entire country and not just the needs of a few in the establishment.

Update: Mr. Seib also has a video about his views.

PATHETIC

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

PATHETIC!

For anyone wondering why the establishment media is held in such low regard one need look no further for evidence than this video of today's Morning Joe program. Pathetic is the best word I can use to describe the entire conversation that occurred. The entire video is full of distortions, CYA comments and some just outright lies. I was so angered after watching this disgraceful display that I felt I needed to make this post in order to do my part in holding our media accountable for telling us the truth, not the kind of  garbage we saw this morning.

Have these people even bothered to read any of the government documents about our treatment of our prisoners? It's mind boggling to me that people in our media can actually sit around and make comments that what was done to our prisoners was no different than what we do to our own military. That is just factually false. Is this willful ignorance or are these people so delusional that they actually believe this ? Or maybe it's just that lying is the only way for them to convince the public that there should be no accountability for this outrageous program? 

This video is such a clear example of what our establishment media has been pushing from day 1

NO PROSECUTIONS - even if we find out that the evidence reveals that crimes were committed or in the case of Meacham, a call for no prosecutions before the investigation is even started. 

Meacham: I don't think we should be prosecuting people, uh,  but I do think we should be finding out exactly what happened and why.

Scarborough: It would be very difficult if we started prosecuting people because you couldn't stop with the lawyers it would  have to go to Dick Cheney & Condoleeza Rice & Don Rumsfeld & George W. Bush -  all the people around the table. As Donnie said that is the last thing this president wants for this own political reasons.

Meacham: I completely agree with that. I think that you have to go to the top responsible officer and everyone likes to talk about VP Cheney in this context, and they should, he was a critical player but we had a president, we had I think a president who history will show was much more hands on than we think and so you would have to somehow or another figure out how to hold a president culpable in his official role which has been a very complicated thing in our Constitutional history. You mentioned the Nixon example which is the best, I think. And I think you're right in that a criminal prosecution takes us to a very different place then we've been in the past...at the same time I would love to see a terrific senator or congressman doing a 911 commission kind of thing.

So Meacham, in typical beltway establishment fashion,  evidently holds the view that we shouldn't prosecute the unethical lawyers who wrote memos to provide legal cover for this illegal torture program because then we'd have to go after ALL the high-level officials responsible and we can't do that because that's too "complicated." Evidently prosecuting those few lower level  "bad apples" that we've already prosecuted will just have to be good enough.

Scarborough: I hear from some agencies that 100 people died while in captivity in these type of prisons I don't know whether that's the truth or not I would like to know though -  I think you're exactly right that we have these  investigations - we clear the air but we need to be focused and rational about it and not emotional.

Meacham: ...I don't think we know exactly what happened... Let's do a Post 911 commission. 

Deutsch: Let's not prosecute I think we all agree on that...

Meacham: nods his head in approval.

Think about this conversation...Scarborough brings up that he's heard that 100 people died who were in our care....He then says we need investigations but we must be focused and rational about it and not emotional...Meacham says we don't know exactly what happened but he nods in agreement when Deutsch says we shouldn't prosecute. 

I wonder how anyone can hear that there might have been 100 prisoners that died while in our custody, agree we should investigate but without knowing what evidence that investigation shows agree in advance that there should be no prosecutions. What kind of twisted mind does it take to  agree with such thinking?

These people in this discussion have all been on the wrong side of this issue and they know it. They're desperately trying to grab at anything that will prevent them from having to admit that they were wrong like you see in this disgusting comment by Deutsch.

Deutsch: John don't we all know what happened? And you set it up best -  on Sept 10th we were one country on Sept 12th we were a different country and we all know that if you said to everybody in this country OK, if by waterboarding one terrorist you could save your brother would you do it? We all know the answer to that and that was the tenor of this country so without an investigation and Joe help me out here or disagree with me, don't we all kinda know that we walked into that grey emotional and legal area and obviously these are things that people are taught in U.S. military training techniques so there is a precedent there, so don't we kind of know what went down?

How presumptuous of you Mr. Deutsch to pretend to speak for everyone in this country. Quite frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. There were and still are a lot of people in this country who would never agree to waterboard anyone and even if everyone in this country said "yes" to your self-serving hypothetical, it's up to our leaders to resist the passions of the mob and follow the law. What you've outlined in your scenario isn't a legitimate reason for breaking the law and you should be ashamed of yourself for even insinuating that it is.

After defending the torture program these guys finally get around to defending their own culpability. All of these men have been on the wrong side of this issue for years. They've ridiculed the rest of us who have been advocating for accountability for torture. But now when they finally see the accountability freight train coming directly at them these guys cynically try to minimize their own role in allowing the torture program to go unchallenged by saying that everyone was at fault (not just them). No, everyone was not at fault. And no,  everyone didn't have a different mindset about the rule of law on Sept. 12. Maybe you guys did, but a lot of us didn't and YOU KNOW IT.

Scarborough: The important thing though is John, as with the economic crisis, we love blaming Wall street, we love blaming Washington. We need to blame ourselves also. I remember, you know,  I am a  conservative/libertarian,  I want small government . I remember on Sept 12th  turning to my wife and saying -  you know I love small government, I don't trust federal authority  but  I'll tell  you what we need to do, whatever we have (you can hear Deutsch saying...exactly exactly at this point) to  do to make sure it never happens again and I'll be damned if 300 million Americans didn't say the same thing at the same time, so lets not be self righteous now 8years (Another Deutsch "exactly" heard in the background) later when we think that the skies over New York are safe.

Meacham is nodding in agreement during this whole self-serving comment by Scarborough.

Meachum then (mis) quotes Arthur Schlesinger in order to try to cover up his own incompetence on this issue now that he sees that it's not going to be ignored, as he and his fellow establishment clowns have been advocating.

Meacham: (supposedly quoting Schlesinger) Self righteousness and retrospect is easy and cheap

The accurate Schlesinger quote is:

Righteousness is easy in retrospect.

Meacham knows that a lot of us were saying the same things then as we are now so his "cheap" shot about self-righteousness is nothing more than a self-serving comment designed to deflect attention away from the fact that he's been wrong about this issue all along.

Perhaps he should have used this Schlesinger quote instead because it certainly describes Scarborough, Meacham, Deutsch and other establishment media personalities, both then and now.

For most Americans the Constitution had become a hazy document, cited like the Bible on ceremonial occasions but forgotten in the daily transactions of life.

Please watch the entire video because I only scratched the surface on the objectionable comments.

torture

Armitage: Against Following "Rule of Law" for Torture, Favors "Remedial Corrections" Instead

In this remarkable video snippet from an interview with former Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, conducted by Avi Lewis of Al-Jazeera, Armitage cynically advocates against holding  anyone legally accountable for the Bush administration torture program.

While Armitage admits that prisoners were tortured (waterboarded) he is not for “throwing someone into the Hoosegow” (slang for prison) as he explains it, but instead thinks the appropriate consequences for these crimes should be nothing more than  providing “remedial corrections.”  

So why does Armitage think that there should be no legal accountability for Bush administration officials who were responsible for creating and running the torture program they called "enhanced interrogation?" According to Mr. Armitage it’s because the Framers of the Constitution placed the oversight role of the Executive Branch in the hands of the Congress and, therefore, only the Congress can determine the consequences for these crimes through the oversight process. And then to make the circle of no accountability complete, Mr. Armitage then goes on to condemn the lack of oversight by the Congress during the Bush years, even going so far as to call the Congress  AWOL.  He bemoans the fact that they didn't stop these officials at the time and gives the listeners the impression that because of the lack of oversight that it's now too late to do anything about these crimes other than "remedial corrections."

I certainly agree with Armitage that the Congress was AWOL or MIA in their oversight duties and that there are probably members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who were complicit in the torture program. But I don’t agree that because they were MIA that it means that officials, who were responsible for creating, running and covering up for the torture program, should receive a “get out of jail free card” because of it. That’s not how our system of government works and Mr. Armitage is well aware of that fact.  We have a long history in this country where our Department of Justice has brought charges against members of the executive branch and legislative branch without any prior Congressional activity having taken place. So watching Mr. Armitage twist himself and the Constitution into a pretzel in order to advocate that there be zero accountability for these people is quite disturbing.  

When Mr. Armitage was actually asked a straight forward question about the law, he used a trick, favored by some of our traditional media personalities - he borrowed part of President Obama's words about looking forward and then combined them with his own twist on those words in order to help buttress his argument that there should be no legal accountability for torture.

Lewis: If torture is against the law and you say that the United States tortured, waterboarding specifically, that that’s a crime and surely it should be prosecuted. 

Armitage: You’re making…you're using terms like surely this and surely that. I happen to prefer the formula used by our president where he says he’s much more interested in reconcillation and correction of these problems. He wants to be a forward looking man and that’s where I am.

I actually think that Armitage’s comments in this interview may have been nothing more than Mr. Armitage running interference for his former boss, Colin Powell. As we discovered last year, Powell attended the Principals meetings, where it was reported that various Bush interrogation methods were discussed in detail and approved by those attending the meetings. And because of that, Powell might very well have some legal exposure should a criminal investigation go forward (for all we know Armitage may have some legal exposure of his own).    

At the end of the interview when he's asked why he didn't resign once he found out that the Geneva Conventions were not being followed, Mr. Armitage offers up, what I consider to be nothing more than  a self-serving comment designed to mitigate his own failures.

In hindsight maybe I should’ve. But in those positions you see how many more battles you have. You maybe fool yourself. You say how much worse would x, y, or z be if I weren’t here trying to do it? So torture is a matter of principle as far as I’m concerned. I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would’ve had the courage to resign. **

After watching Mr. Armitage in this video I'm convinced that even had he known about the torture at the time (he may have) that he still wouldn't have resigned over it. He would have rationalized why he should stay just like he did in the statement above. And, even now, when we all know about the torture, Mr. Armitage still lacks the necessary courage to stand up for principle and demand that the people responsbile for these hideous crimes be held accountable through the rule of law. 

No, Mr. Armitage, you would not have had the courage to resign, of that, I'm certain.

**Update: One of the pieces (Mark Silva's) that I used for a quote by Armitage  has now altered that quote on their website. Here is the information they changed since I wrote this piece early this morning.

He hopes that, "had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would've had the courage to resign,'' he said. "But I don't know. It's in hindsight now.''

Mr. President, Don't Let Former Bush Officials "Take You For a Buggy Ride"

For those readers who are not familiar with the old expression -  "taken for a buggy ride," let me explain. The expression means basically to be fooled or played for a sucker. The first time I heard this expression used was in the wonderful Frank Capra movie "It Happened One Night". In that movie when Clark Gable's character met the father of Claudette Colbert's character, he was under the mistaken belief that Colbert didn't love him and that she had just been playing him for a sucker. The father, unlike Gable's character, knew full well that his daughter really did love Gable.

Here is some of the dialogue from that delightful scene:

Gable: Did anybody ever make a sucker out of you? 

It's a matter of principle. You probably wouldn't understand. 

When anybody takes me for a buggy ride, I don't like paying for the privilege. 

Father: Were you taken for a buggy ride? 

Gable: Yes. With all the trimmings. 

 

Now what  does being taken for a "buggy ride" have to do with President Obama?

In today's Wall Street Journal they're reporting that there are still "top officials" who don't want the public to find out all of the details in the Bush interrogation tactic memos, even though Obama has promised that in his administration we will have transparency in government.

[Snip]

The Obama administration is leaning toward keeping secret some graphic details of tactics allowed in Central Intelligence Agency interrogations, despite a push by some top officials to make the information public, according to people familiar with the discussions.These people cautioned that President Barack Obama is still reviewing internal arguments over the release of Justice Department memorandums related to CIA interrogations, and how much information will be made public is in flux.

[Snip] 

A decision to keep secret key parts of the three 2005 memos outlining legal guidance on CIA interrogations would anger some Obama supporters who have pushed him to unveil now-abandoned Bush-era tactics. It would also go against the views of Attorney General Eric Holder and White House Counsel Greg Craig, people familiar with the matter said. Top CIA officials have spoken out strongly against a full release, saying it would undermine the agency's credibility with foreign intelligence services and hurt the agency's work force, people involved in the discussions said. However,Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair favors releasing the information, current and former senior administration officials said.

Reading between the lines of the WSJ story it's pretty clear that the "top officials" in question are former Bush officials still at the CIA,  the guilible Mr. Panetta, former Bush officials outside the administration and most likely former Bush CIA official and now Deputy National-Security Adviser, John Brennan. 

So what we have here are Bush holdovers and other Bush officials, who were involved in the Bush torture operation, that are now trying to take Obama for the same good old fashioned buggy ride that the easily fooled Mr. Panetta has obviously already taken because he's now arguing that the CIA should not be held accountable for torture. Yeah, they're trying to play him for a sucker, all right. Look at what the WSJ says about their arguments for why Obama shouldn't release the full memos.

 

[Snip]

Intelligence officials also believe that making the techniques public would give al Qaeda a propaganda tool just as the administration is stepping up its fight against the terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some former administration officials have also argued that releasing all the memos could help terrorists train to endure the most extreme interrogation techniques.

[Snip]

People familiar with the matter said some senior intelligence advisers to the president raised fears that releasing the two most sensitive memos could cause the Obama administration to be alienated from the CIA's rank and file, as happened during the Bush administration when Porter Goss, who was unpopular among CIA officers, headed the agency.

For them to say that releasing these memos would provide Al Qaeda with a propaganda tool is simply outrageous. Releasing memos that officially confirm what we already know about interrogation techniques, and that incidently we aren't even supposedly using anymore, won't help Al Qaeda but it sure worries those high officials who are concerned about being prosecuted for their own role in the Bush torture program. And if those specious arguments they made aren't bad enough, they are also cynically using the rank and file CIA as tools to manipulate a new president into buying into their little coverup.

You'll notice that each of these "reasons" they offer share one thing in common - each of them represent the same "playing the fear card" routine that former V.P. Cheney is so fond of using whenever he doesn't have a good argument to make. It's so obvious what they're doing that it's amazing that Obama would even listen to one word of it much less think that it's a valid argument worthy of being "reviewed."

I sure hope the rabid Obama supporters who cheer his every move, no matter what he does, are right and that he will actually see through this transparent attempt by former Bush officials to cover their own behinds. But I'm afraid that Obama is so enamored of the idea of bi-partisanship that instead of standing up for principle and doing what is right, that he is willing to entertain this disingenous subterfuge as a legitmate concern. My guess is that those former Bush officials probably think that too, which is why they haven't given up on trying to take him for that "buggy ride".

Update: Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic also thinks Obama is too focused on bi-partisanship.

Politically, this might be one of those situations where Obama is trying to please all his allies, when he can't possibly. So he's trying to compromise with people he wants to maintain good relations with where no compromise is possible. 

I predict that if Obama doesn't release all the memos, the left will start to really hammer him on torture proceedings, state secrets privilege and his quiet evolution on the Patriot Act. Most have held back on this front, but this will make them feel abandoned and thus less restrained.