It’s been the subject of a LOT of discussion, controversy and invective over the terror alert bit — but there is so much more on policy and internal wrangling in the book that deserves a wider, thorough airing.

And I know you all have lots of questions to ask, don’t you?

The magical mystery book tour on which Tom Ridge still finds himself took another turn yesterday evening on Rachel Maddow’s show.

At right, you can see the very end of the interview where Ridge compliments Rachel for asking her detailed and fact-based questions in a polite manner after she pins him down on Iraq excuses.

Have to say, Rachel’s consistent, persistent style and thorough preparedness is so much more effective than the servile and/or barely conversant in the facts bobbleheads we usually get, isn’t it?

But it was the back and forth on terror alerts and politics that got me.

Watching the Q&A, I was struck by Ridge’s vehemence on "at no time, at no time, at NO time did politics enter into anybody’s equation — these are tough judgment calls…."

And yet? The particular occasion he’s discussing was the weekend before the election in 2004. How could politics not be on anyone’s mind.  And how could anyone know for certain what might be an internal motivating factor for anyone else’s arguments?

Why the continued back and forth?  And why are we only hearing about this now?

Because this is what Ridge himself wrote in his book:

A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensured. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level and was supported by Rumsfeld. There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, “Is this about security or politics?” Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level. … I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington’s recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

Since it came out, he has variously tried to downplay, backpedal, or explain away that paragraph that has been seized on by commentators on the left and right and all over the media.  But the questions still linger, as well they should. (more…)

Patterns via -sel-. Gorgeous macro detail and color.

Today, it’s another inane installment of the continuing saga of the GOP’s longest-running program wherein the buck stops anywhere but here.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the overwrought and not-so-dulcet tones of Kit Bond and friends, in Accountability For Thee, But Not For Me:

U.S. Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) was joined by U.S. Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators today to express concern about recent reports that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder intends to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists.

“We are deeply concerned by recent news reports that you are ‘poised to appoint a special prosecutor’ to investigate CIA officials who interrogated al Qaeda terrorists. Such an investigation could have a number of serious consequences, not just for the honorable members of the intelligence community, but also for the security of all Americans,” the senators wrote in a letter to Holder.

Shorter GOP: "No matter what illegal and unethical policies we may have championed or enabled, no matter what illegal activities may have been perpetrated, no matter what agencies of the federal government we have helped to corrupt, manipulate or mangle…accountability is only for the other guys. Never, ever for us."

If they were at least manning up to the need for investigations of illegality that reach however high such misconduct may have occurred, I might have the slightest glimmer of respect for them. Because, frankly, leaving line agents holding the bag for Dick Cheney, David Addington and the neocon crew isn’t exactly appropriate, now is it?

But nope, that’s not their point.

It’s bad enough that the special prosecutor mandate doesn’t seem broad enough at this juncture to encompass policy making at all levels. Because that sends a signal that if you hold power, you aren’t held to account. Only the little guy is.

Is it any wonder that so many things in this country are a mess right now when "look the other way" is considered appropriate behavior from our leadership?

I wouldn’t condone that as an excuse from my 6 year old. And I’m sure as hell not going to accept it from a sitting Senator who takes an oath to uphold the laws of this country and its constitution.

Emptywheel, Spencer, CCR, Glenn and the ALCU have more on the CIA docs.  I’m still reading through — looks like it will be a highlighter and post-its kinda week. (more…)

Forest for the trees via josef.stuefer.

Here is the difference in thought process between Dick Cheney and his true-believing supporters and rabid family defenders versus anyone who dares to doubt them (in this instance, represented by President Barack Obama). Let’s call it "delusion, in a nutshell."

First, Dick and Liz Cheney:

Even before Mr. Obama released secret memorandums on the interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration, Mr. Cheney, as part of researching his memoir, had asked the National Archives to declassify two other documents he contends would show that harsh interrogations produced useful information, according to his daughter Liz, who is helping him organize and write the memoir. The documents do not reveal specific tactics, Ms. Cheney said.

When the Obama administration released the memos, Mr. Cheney asked the archives to expedite his request and made a splash this week by announcing it on Fox News in an interview with Sean Hannity.

In this world, you see specific trees that you find attractive, ignoring anything else that doesn’t suit your particular view.

Next, we have what I like to think of as "reality." In this world, you look at all the trees instead of deliberately cherry-picking, hence you try to see the entire forest:

Boehner also urged Obama to release further classified memos detailing the questionable interrogation techniques. Former vice president Richard B. Cheney has argued that the memos will make clear that aggressive tactics yielded valuable intelligence information that prevented further terrorist attacks.

Obama responded that Cheney had done "a good job at telling his side of the story," according to Democrats and Republicans in the room. "Obama said the memos weren’t as clear-cut," one attendee said.

And this is why conversations on this subject go past each other.

The GOP sees any question as being impertinent and politically motivated.  And the Democrats see GOP refusal to look squarely at all of reality as dangerous lunacy.

But when doubt starts to creep in for some of the GOP faithful and questions begin to be asked by the formerly pliant?   Could that explain the frayed nerves of late? At what point do they toss the Cheney anchor overboard to save the rest of ship and their own asses, do you think? (more…)

In his book, Administration of Torture, which Jameel Jaffer co-authored with Amrit Singh, we are introduced to the legal questions surrounding torture and other acts thusly: Yes, the [Bush] administration acknowledged, some soldiers had abused prisoners, but these soldiers were anomalous sadists who ignored clear orders. Abuse was abberational — not systemic, not widespread, and certainly not a matter of policy.

The government’s own documents tell a different story….

Uber-neoconman Richard Perle yesterday in DC: In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. But at yesterday’s forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which: 1. Perle is not a neoconservative. 2. Neoconservatives do not exist. 3. Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn’t be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years. “There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy,” Perle informed the gathering, hosted by National Interest magazine. “It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy.”

Let’s take a closer look at the latest round of reporting on the as-yet-still-not-released OPR report on legal reasoning (or lack thereof) at the Bush/Cheney OLC. On the heels of Isikoff’s Saturday leakfest, Newsweek coughs up with some intriguing tidbits…

Ready yourself for the shrieks, the cries, the dittohead fury…the wingnut run on Depends: Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told Congress today that instability in countries around the world caused by the current global economic crisis rather than terrorism is the primary near-term security threat to the United States….Blair also raised the specter of the “high levels of violent extremism” in the turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s along with “regime-threatening instability” if the economic crisis persists over a one- to two-year period.

This is a fine way to wake up. In an interview with the WaPo’s Lois Romano, Obama top advisor David Axelrod politely yet firmly hands Cheney and Rove their STFU papers.