An interesting read

I Could Have Stopped Waterboarding Before It Happened
An exclusive account from the CIA’s former top lawyer.
By JOHN RIZZO January 05, 2014

I wish he had.

Why?

Because, my friend, waterboarding is torture, and a war crime, and it reduced the moral authority of the United States to slightly above that of the miscreants who engage in public beheadings. Allowing it caused hundreds of actual deaths, extended the war, made the actual process of keeping the peace significantly harder, and set a poor moral standard for the rest of the world. I know, minor considerations.

there you go again, actually reading those inane posts!

Let me see if I have this right:
"my job was to provide legal advice to one of the most secretive (for good reasons) parts of the government and the men and women who led or consulted with it. But now that I'm out, I'm going to make money by violating attorney client privilege, and oh, BTW, give out props to the guy who led us into an unfounded war in Iraq cuz you never know when I might need someone powerful on my side."

you are right, suckered.

I found this to be a prime indicator of Rizzo's warped powers of logicking:So GW Bush was left out of the decision-making, then after the fact lies about being in the thick of it - for what reason? To "protect" the folks who screwed up? Or was it more important to GW Bush to be viewed through the historical lens as having been in charge...

Either way, it's not an action that I would consider to be "stand-up". "Cover-up" seems a more appropriate term.

I think there was another possibility which does incorporate "cover-up" or "standup".

I believe a case can be made which characterizes Pres Bush as a weak president, surrounded by much stronger folks, who were more adept at politics and the understanding of politics than Pres Bush.

One incident I recall is his recollection of a conversation which included Tenet. Bush demonstrates his ignorance of the subject matter and relies complete;y on Tenet's assessment. I suspect in the arena of foreign affairs this was routine.

The other component of this equation is his belief that he was in fact the "decider-in-chief".

Looking over one's shoulder through the fog of time and delusional beliefs, I find that many folks can not recollect events with any accuracy. This could just as easily be a case of the decider-in-chief believing he was in charge and simply recollecting his distorted memories of an event for which he probably did not have much information.

Hmm... interesting. Drone strikes that routinely kill innocent people throughout the region, all done with no risk to those killing remotely has somehow not reduced US "moral authority" or caused "hundreds of actual deaths"? "Shock and Awe" macho posturing, bombing, and killing did not do so as well? Atrocities committed by soldiers, pilots, and other US personnel did not reduce US "moral authority"? Abu Ghraib's abuses somehow failed to reduce US "moral authority" or cause "hundreds of actual deaths"? But, instead, you single out the waterboarding torture of a few probable bad guys from a region that is noted for torture and brutality and claim it did reduce "US moral authority" and did cause "hundreds of actual deaths"? I am doubtful that it had such an impact.

By the way, referring to maintaining a "peace" that has been elusive at best, and suggesting that the "war" has ended is, in my opinion, seriously wishful thinking.

The fact that it violates US and international law ends the discussion for me. If we were discussing the same behavior by you or I "moral authority" would be irrelevant. And, I agree with issodhos.a

Well, shut my gay mouth. Has there been a détente?