Armitage: "They Tortured" "Maybe I should Have Resigned"

[laststeamtrain]

Thursday, April 16, 2009
Armitage: "They Tortured" "Maybe I should Have Resigned"
Avi Lewis interviews former Deputy Secretary of State for Aljazeera English:

<snip>

Armitage admits:

1. He and his boss Colin Powell lost a major battle within the Bush administration on whether the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war applied to guerrillas captured during the "war on terror."

2. That the Bush administration engaged in torture in the form of waterboarding, though he denied that he had sure knowledge of this practice at the time he was in office

3. That he probably should have resigned, but hung on for fear of how bad policy could get if he and others were not there to fight the battles

4. He says that the US Senate should have known about the torture, calls them "AWOL," and implies that there will be no investigation of Bush crimes against humanity because such a process would implicate the senators themselves, as at the very least having been derelict in their duty to advise and consent. (I wonder if he is also implying that some Democratic senators knew about the waterboarding and remained silent, so that they will not now launch a prosecution?)

Armitage was one of three officials, including Karl Rove and Irv Lewis Libby, who revealed to US reporters that Valerie Plame was a covert operative in the CIA. Plame is the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was the first to publicly undermine the Bush claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which was used to justify the war.

<more>

http://www.juancole.com/2009/04/armitage-they-tortured-maybe-i-should.html

[ForrestGump]

1. I haven't been following any of this for ages, but if it's now KNOWN that

these three stooges exposed a CIA agent, shouldn't they have already been lined up against a wall?

I mean, I don't know if anyone expects Obama or the Spineless Democrats Of DC™ to actually go after the ringleaders, like Bush, Cheney, and maybe even the next rung down, but lackeys like this would seem ripe for sending to prison for a long, long time. What's the holdup?

[MADem]

2. MAYBE he should have resigned? I should think so. He had a great reason to do so, too--

he could have said that he "needed to spend more time...with his DENTIST."

The problem with his assertions about the US Senate is this--the agenda of the Senate was set back then by a baaastid name Frist. The ones who "owned the microphone" were all in the GOP, and many of them have skee-daddled by now. Of course, if there were briefings that made offensives quite clear (e.g., Yeah, we're wiping our asses on Geneva, but so what? No telling, now!) that's a horse of a different color.

This bit is special:

It has been suggested that the six implicated Bush administration officials can no longer safely travel to Europe, because judges claiming universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity might well order their arrest, as happened to former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

[pmorlan1]

3. Armitage Interview Was Self-Serving

I wrote a blog post about the Armitage video early this morning. What jumped out at me about this interview was that Armitage advocated zero accountability for the torture crimes.

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

http://wwwdemocracity.blogspot.com/2009/04/armitage-against-following-rule-of-law.html

[Solly Mack]

4. I have a boil on my ass...maybe I should have it lanced

[H2O Man]

5. Dick is what

Erich Fromm called an "existential failure." He failed himself, his country, and the world.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Hey, H2O Man, I wonder what you think of my theory about the apparent immunity

from prosecution given to the Bushwhack principles. It seems obvious to me that they HAVE been given immunity. So here's my theory. Circa late 2006. Cheney/Rumsfeld are about to order the nuking of Iran. Rebellion against this, and other things like outing CIA counter-proliferation projects, had been building up over the previous year (--was going on behind the scenes during Katrina, along with a bloody internal battle between Bush/Rove and Cheney/Libby over who the designated fall guy for outing Plame & project was going to be). The forces of rebellion merged with Bush Sr and his Iraq Study Group, Bush Sr's purpose being to save Bush Jr from Cheney/Rumsfeld disaster (nuking Iran), but other ISG members having other "establishment" purposes, for instance, Panetta (long time, deep CIA) saving the CIA from Cheney/Rumsfeld. This powerful group visits Bush/Cheney and offers them immunity from impeachment and future prosecution, if they, a) refrain from nuking Iran, b) go quietly when the time comes, and c) get rid of Rumsfeld. Various parties have "the goods" on Bush and Cheney on impeachable crimes, present them with the evidence, and they agree to the deal. This behind-the-scenes powerful group also calls off the Diebold/ES&S dogs for the '06 Congressional elections (or partially calls them off) and the Democrats are permitted to win control, just barely, but with a number of "Blue Dogs" to keep the military gravy train on track, and to guarantee the rich getting richer in the coming Financial 9/11.

THIS is where Pelosi's strange announcement, just after the '06 elections--"Impeachment is off the table"--came from. I wondered at the time, "WHAT table?" THIS was the "table." This also explains how a Constitutional scholar like Barack Obama could say, "We need to look forward not backward," re a list of extremely grave high crimes and misdemeanors long enough to circle the earth. He had to agree to "the Deal" in order to be permitted to win the '08 election. It explains why Rumsfeld resigned with no change of policy in Iraq. (The new Democratic Congress just continued pouring billions more tax dollars and tens of thousands more cannon fodder into that oil project.) It explains so many things.

I think Armitage's explanation is a possibility--that too many Democratic Senators and other top Democrats were collusive on torture (and on many other crimes--spying on Americans, unjust war, 'disappeared' military billions, the Patriot Act, the "Help America Vote for Bush Act," etc.). They are not inclined to investigate themselves. But that has not stopped Democrats before from putting on "show" hearings (Iran-Contra comes to mind), and at least creating the impression of some kind of accountability. They don't seem to think they need to, this time. (And possibly that's where the 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines come in--they really don't give a fuck what we think any more--they don't have to. If they play ball with the "military-industrial complex," they are guaranteed a seat.)

The motives of the group of powers who made "the Deal" with Bush/Cheney may have been mixed--some good, some dubious. One motive was to pull back from the brink of Armageddon (nuking Iran might well have drawn Russia and China and possibly India into a general war), and, with Cheney/Rumsfeld's finger on the trigger, they had to put something big "on the table" (immunity from impeachment/prosecution). Another motive was to restore things as they were--to keep the "secret government" in tact, to keep the huge military budgets in tact, to keep the corporate resource war machine in motion, and to protect the national political establishment from a peoples' rebellion. In short, Cheney/Rumsfeld had gone too far, and there were various motives--good and not so good--to curtail them. If they had nuked Iran, their next step might well have been to declare martial law here, and call off elections. This "Deal" with them created the appearance of normality--that our democracy was still working--but none of these players intended a restoration of democracy; rather, a restoration of things as they were (before Cheney/Rumsfeld exceeded their mandate from our political establishment; got too power-mad).

I like to pull back from a "conspiracy theory" and think: Well, things are just a muddle; no design, no purpose, just a lot of jackals looting us poor citizens, amidst a muddle of government bureaucrat types and vying corporate rulers. And I've done that with this theory. Nobody in charge--a sort of "dog eat dog" chaos at the top. And somehow the voting system worked to start balancing things out a bit. This is possible, too. But I think my theory is the more likely possibility--that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were bribed to stand down, primarily because they were going to risk Armageddon to get control of Iran's oil.

And, suddenly--lo and behold--nuking Iran was also "off the table."

[H2O Man]

7. I think the general idea

is accurate. There are a few areas where I might offer alternative possibilities. One example wuld be on "nuking" Iran. Both Rumsfeld and especially Cheney were looking to bring about a change in government leadership in Iran. It had nothing to do with the personal freedom of citizens, of course; it was "freedom" for US oil executives to have cheap access to Iran's natural resources.

Cheney & Co. were tied closely to Chalabi, the notorious sociopath who wanted to be installed as the head of Iraq. Iranian counter-intelligence had placed a top official at Chalabi's side. Israeli intelligence became aware of this, and recognized that the present government in Iran would benefit from Saddam being given the boot. It is unclear to what level Chalabi knew his top aide's true role -- he was notorious for playing every situation from every angle.

Israeli intelligence is concerned about Iranian nuclear programing. We may believe it is for "energy" or for weapons, but it is important to recognize that, if we agree with the Israeli position or not, that they are sincere in their beliefs that the Iranian program poses a threat -- not of the state of Iran declaring nuclear war on Israel, but rather, on some Iranian military people making the components of "dirty bombs" available to other shadowy forces.

Thus, Cheney was actively encouraging Israel to conduct military strikes on Iranian facilities. This is not speculation: even Newsweek reported this. Cheney knew that, if Iran attacked Israel in response, that the US would become involved, and would then have the excuse to intensify the quest for regime change.

Could this include a nuclear bomb hitting the capital of Iran? Anything is possible, especially with morally ill people like Cheney. But the US military was opposed to the idea. Still, we know that Cheney had been behind "bunker-busters" being sold to Israel.

It was at this time when the people behind the scenes, headed by James Baker III, imposed the changes that marginalized Cheney. (It is important, of course, to recognize that a bureaucrat can enjoy power while entrenched in the margins. Cheney still has power, in the unelected bureaucrats throughout Washington, DC.)

Was there a deal regarding impeachment? Absolutely. Did democratic leadership readily accept it, due in large part to their being implicated in some of the things, such as torture? Again, absolutely.

This not only explains why there isn't an immediate attempt to prosecute the obvious criminals in the administration. It also reveals something that many people appear unaware of: that President Obama does not have the power to do what needs to be done. Again, we may agree or disagree with what steps he is taking, but we need to recognize the reality of the situation. An American president can do more bad things than good, in the present set of circumstances. More, even the few decent and the many okay members of Congress have no more power than members of a high school student council; the real power comes from behind that curtain, with people such as Baker. And they own the leadership of the democratic party, with almost no exceptions.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Members Of The Senate & Congress DID Know...

Armitage is one of the biggest shitpilers and spreaders in the beltway. Remember, he got wrapped up in the Plame case...trying to take the fall for Rove and probably kept him from being indicted. Most of what is posted above is outright bullshit and typical rushpublican revisionism. In specific, Armitage has tried to distance himself from the regime he shilled for...and protecting his boss, Colin. They damn well knew torture was going on...they knew they were going with bogus intel...they knew there wre no WMDs in Iraq and they knew the booosh regime was spying on its own people. Yet Colin and Armitage rolled along...until they were pushed off the wagon after the 2004 elections.

It's already known that Jay Rockefeller knew about the torture...but he and others were sworn to silence in the matter. Rockefeller wrote a letter and placed it in his drawer...only to drag it out after James Risen and others had uncovered the torture and wiretapping and he tried to play victim. Then Rockefeller pushes through the telcom immunity last year. He knew and his actions show his complicity. But at the time, speaking out was political suicide...the corporate media along with the boooosh regime "Mighty Wurltizer" effectively shut down any critics and many spineless Democrats, like Rockefeller, folded like a deck of cards.