Thank goodness we have a president who is willing to “listen” to foreign governments, to “create space” for conflict resolution, to break America’s habit of “dictating” to those with whom it disagrees, to invite international institutions to “share” in the process of mitigating the world’s dangers. Without persistent Dr. Phil-diplomacy, we never could have achieved this:
United Nations and Iranian officials have been secretly negotiating a deal to persuade world powers to lift sanctions and allow Tehran to retain the bulk of its nuclear programme in return for co-operation with UN inspectors.
According to a draft document seen by The Times, the 13-point agreement was drawn up in September by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in an effort to break the stalemate over Iran’s nuclear programme before he stands down at the end of this month.
Forget the cooperation of Russia; forget the cooperation of Iran. The most benign and internationally beloved president in modern history can’t keep the intermediary bodies from secretly plotting against us. It’s useful to keep today’s revelation in mind when people go on about how George W. Bush spurned international bodies or about how the U.S. can’t be the world’s police. Perhaps Obama will get tough on the IAEA and register one of his bone-chilling warnings about his patience not being endless.
There are a slew of synonyms for the kind of popularity Obama has conferred upon America: adoration, affection, favor, and so on. But there is no usable replacement for respect. Respect comes when you draw a line. For this administration, there is no line. The uncooperativeness (forget evil) of bad actors never gets fully recognized. Because there is no line, the administration’s claims of progress are unfalsifiable. That is, they can never be disproved. Everything is endlessly encouraging.
Hey, you can’t blame ElBaradei for wanting to secure his legacy. You know what they say: You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too many Nobel Peace Prizes.
Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. is most assuredly a hero—who may also have to pay a price for his heroism. We cannot allow the law to be violated without penalty. He should, though, at the very worst, be pardoned for his possible crime by President Bush. This may turn out to be the best way to resolve the matters. Rodriguez had to destroy the tapes because the Democratic Party’s leadership is comprised of scoundrels and back stabbers. They largely deserve to be treated with contempt and disrespect. It is utterly foolish to vote for the typical Democrat except for extraordinary reasons. Such individuals are inclined towards self hating Americanism and dishonest pacifism. I am also convinced that it is too late to save the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman was their last chance and they marginalized him.
Hold on here. Is this the same CIA that contributed to the latest NIE? And does anyone really believe that some GS-12 would be hauled before a Congressional committee to explain his presence at a waterboarding session with KSM? Not happening.
Destroying the tapes, contra Mr. Thomson, was not an act of heroism. Rodriguez’s pension is secure (and he doubtless gets lifetime health coverage as well). Heroism implies some sacrifice. Rodriguez probably acted out of CYA motives, given how leaky the CIA has been. Who’s fault is that? Well, ask yourself why the Bush administration, which Mr. Podhoretz never tires of defending, hasn’t prosecuted a single case of leaking in 7+ years. Andy McCarthy has noted how difficult this can be, but did the Justice Dept. leave no stone unturned to get Scooter Libby?
The VRWC shouldn’t let up on Pelosi and the others who knew, did nothing (or approved), then huffed self-righteously for partisan effect. This account suggests that Rodriguez was more worried about the DC political culture than about the Islamists. That is truly scandalous, if not exactly surprising. Do I think he’s a “hero”? Not really — not even if you call what he did classic civil disobedience (and I don’t know if he expected to get caught) — but I certainly empathize. The quaintest irony is that although we no longer have the incriminating tapes, we do know that Pelosi signed off on them. How does it feel to lie in that bed, Madam Speaker?
“Destroying the tapes, contra Mr. Thomson, was not an act of heroism.”
It is my understanding that Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. could be sent to prison. Am I mistaken? If I am right, then he definitely put himself at risk. President Bush takes advice from the “elites” employed in the Justice Department. This is what he gets because of his refusal to fill these jobs with conservatives. Things could be worse. Al Gore, Jr. or John Kerry might be the occupant of the White House.
Would Mr. Rodriguez be subject to a criminal complaint? Apparently so, according to Time Magazine:
“Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called Friday for Attorney General Michael Mukasey to initiate an investigation into whether actions by Rodriguez or others criminally obstructed justice. Durbin argues, in his letter to Mukasey, that by refusing to turn the interrogation tapes over to the 9/11 Commission, CIA officials may have violated the law against criminal obstruction.”
Were these tapes ever under a blanket subpoena? Do “obstruction” charges ever lie when there isn’t a judicial proceeding? I guess we will find out. In any event, as the Time Mag piece also points out, case officers and people like Rodriguez routinely buy insurance to protect themselves against lawsuits–and presumably witchhunts like Durbin proposes.
Again, as Time Magazine says, Rodriguez may have bought the Bush administration even more problems. But as Mr. Thomson says, and I concur, Bush has only himself to blame for allowing the critical agencies of foreign policy and intelligence to be populated by his enemies.
Just tell me where to send a check to!
I vote for hero status. Even casual students of the Agency know that there are really two agencies—research and operations. Operations tend to resemble the CIA of popular imagination; ideologically. research and analysis resembles Ivy League crit-lit, poly sci or history departments, now second rate and essentially a wing of the Democratic (or worse) party. The net result? We finally have a rogue agency that the Left loved to demonize (Three Days of the Condor, anyone?)—until they realized that it was rogue on their behalf.
Operations are “Republican” and hence, fair game for the Dems and their fellow-travelers at Langley. If operations needs to protect themselves against jerk Senator with a tough re-election campaign, so be it.
Personally, C. Hitchens is right—time to dismantle the agency and start fresh.
I read a story in the NYT that CIA lawyers ok’d the destruction of the tapes.
IIRC Janet Reno during the campaign finance scandal in 1996(?) refused to prosecute or even investigate allegations that Vice President Gore had used his office for fundraising becasue he (and others) had been advised by the campaign’s attorneys that what they did was legal. Although, in truth, it was not.
So. operating under the 1996 Clinton-Gore precedent, the fact that the CIA officials were told by their agency lawyers that they could legally destroy the tapes exonerates them even if in fact it was not legal.
Um, John D, you might want to read up on current events; from a recent Times article:
In other words, both White House and Justice Department lawyers advised against said action.
This entire affair strikes me more as CYA in the CIA (heh) than any sort of “heroic” action. At the very least Rodriguez showed poor judgement; does anyone not expect motions for re-trial regarding terrorist cases? It would be a sad irony if this “hero”s actions resulted in the freedom of convicted terrorists.
Podhoretz’s position seems to reflect a hardening of the mental arteries of many pro-war conservatives, to the point where they reflexively defend anyone criticized by the anti-war party. I am, by the way, speaking as a war supporter, although I am not mindlessly tribal about the issue.
To my mind several of the opinions I’ve seen here show a mirror-image of BDS -specifically the mindless opposition of anything proposed by the Bush adminnistration- wherein some war supporters reflexively oppose any criticism of the war on terror.
What’s next, “Free Lt. Calley?”
How does torturing a mental patient who had no real role in anything accomplish anything but tie into people sick fantasies? What’s that? The controlled media didn’t tell you that he was not involved and mentally deficient? What a surprise, can’t deflate the bogey men can we?
The fact that so many seem to side with this shows how fascist and sick we are becoming as a population. Not to mention extremely disconnected from the things done in our name with our tax money. Even if he were guilty of something it is established fact that torture does not yield accurate information, as the person being tortured will say anything just to get it to stop.
To say that destroying the tapes helps America because seeing them would hurt America’s reputation is like saying outing a wife-beater would destroy his reputation. How stupid is that? It is the ACT that did so, sounds like the typical defense of an abuser.