Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security. The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees. Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve. “None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said. See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle  “This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax. “There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage. “In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques. “We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration. “They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information. “So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country. “Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America. “The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.” Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques. “I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said. “Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country. “This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way. “There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth. “And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience. “We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before. “We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.” Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them. “That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed. “People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.” Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened. “That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.” Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m. By: Jim Meyers See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V3661156 Source:  Newsmax Related Articles: On Torture And War Criminals Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates' The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth" Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos U.S. Presidential Libraries Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim

On Torture And War Criminals

Jon Stewart says Truman was a ‘War Criminal’ because he ordered the use of the atomic bomb against Japan.  Forget that it saved hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who didn’t have to die during a land invasion of Japan.  America killed it’s enemies, and now that’s wrong.  Apparently...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

As Allah notes, “Behold the face of mindless anti-torture absolutism." Like what you see?

For the record, during the debates, both Obama and Hillary listed Truman as among their most admired Presidents.  Who knew that Obama condoned war crimes?

But now that Obama and the liberal Democratic Congress have opened the door to the notion that like a Banana Republic the United States should retroactively judge and prosecute former leaders and administrations instead of being the shining example that we have always been of  the smooth and perfect transfer of power after a civilized election… people like Jon Stewart think it is acceptable to judge and disparage a former wartime president that has always been praised by his peers and for generations since, for his courage and decisiveness at a time when we needed it.  

These types of statements and behavior and what they lead to is only the beginning of the drama caused by the release of the Top Secret classified CIA memos:

Cliff May was a guest on the Daily Show and posed a series of interesting questions to host Jon Stewart regarding interrogation, war and war crimes.  It comes at about the 5:50 mark. Cliff May asks Stewart whether Truman's use of the atomic bomb was a war crime, Stewart ruminates and then responds with an unequivocal "yes." He's certainly not the only American who would take that view, but it's a useful reminder that the most vocal and popular criticism of the Bush administration's war on terror policies comes from people who, if they were being as honest as Stewart, would also judge Lincoln (suspension of habeas), FDR (internment), and Truman (use of nuclear weapons) as war criminals or tyrants or worse.

Stewart repeats the charge again later in the interview, but you have to wonder whether this was one of the rare times that he just got outmaneuvered on his own show. Serious people have debated Truman's decision for 60 years, but even those who disagree with that decision rarely describe it as "criminal." And if it was criminal, whatever crimes the left alleges of President Bush seem pretty trivial in comparison.

See Video:  Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2

“Hundreds of thousands of lives were saved by averting a U.S. invasion of the Japanese home islands, and all ‘this tool’ can do is point a finger and mumble ‘yes’ in response to whether Truman’s a war criminal or not.”

As always, it is hard to tell whether Stewart's clown nose is off or on, but it appeared to be off at that moment -- that is, he was giving a serious answer, not one intended to get laughs.

The rapid end to the War in the Pacific was a blessing to many Americans.

I don't believe that President Truman was a "war criminal" and the rapid end to the War in the Pacific was a blessing to many Americans.  You can bet that neither Jon Stewart’s mindless comment nor the clip will make it to the Truman Library in Independence, Missouri.

Torture? No. Except...

WASHINGTON -- Torture is an impermissible evil. Except under two circumstances. The first is the ticking time bomb. An innocent's life is at stake. The bad guy you have captured possesses information that could save this life. He refuses to divulge. In such a case, the choice is easy. Even John McCain, the most admirable and estimable torture opponent, says openly that in such circumstances, "You do what you have to do." And then take the responsibility.

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

The second exception to the no-torture rule is the extraction of information from a high-value enemy in possession of high-value information likely to save lives. This case lacks the black-and-white clarity of the ticking time bomb scenario. We know less about the length of the fuse or the nature of the next attack. But we do know the danger is great. We know we must act but have no idea where or how -- and we can't know that until we have information. Catch-22.

Under those circumstances, you do what you have to do. And that includes waterboarding.

Did it work? The current evidence is fairly compelling. George Tenet said that the "enhanced interrogation" program alone yielded more information than everything gotten from "the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together."

Michael Hayden, CIA director after waterboarding had been discontinued, writes (with former Attorney General Michael Mukasey) that "as late as 2006 ... fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al-Qaeda came from those interrogations." Even Dennis Blair, Obama's director of national intelligence, concurs that these interrogations yielded "high value information." So much for the lazy, mindless assertion that torture never works.

Asserts Blair's predecessor, Mike McConnell, "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened." Of course, the morality of torture hinges on whether at the time the information was important enough, the danger great enough and our blindness about the enemy's plans severe enough to justify an exception to the moral injunction against torture.

Judging by Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress who were informed at the time, the answer seems to be yes. In December 2007, after a Washington Post report that she had knowledge of these procedures and did not object, she admitted that she'd been "briefed on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future."

Today Pelosi protests "we were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any other of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." She imagines that this distinction between past and present, Clintonian in its parsing, is exonerating.

On the contrary. It is self-indicting. If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

But Pelosi did nothing. No protest. No move to cut off funding. No letter to the president or the CIA chief or anyone else saying "Don't do it."

On the contrary, notes Porter Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee: The members briefed on these techniques did not just refrain from objecting, "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda."

More support, mind you. Which makes the current spectacle of self-righteous condemnation not just cowardly but hollow. It is one thing to have disagreed at the time and said so. It is utterly contemptible, however, to have been silent then and to rise now "on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009" (the words are Blair's) to excoriate those who kept us safe these harrowing last eight years.

By: Charles Krauthammer - a 1987 Pulitzer Prize winner, 1984 National Magazine Award winner, and a columnist for The Washington Post since 1985.

Related Resources:

• Muslims: 'We Do That On First Dates'
  
• The West Coast Plot: An "Inconvenient Truth"
  
• Hoekstra: Congress Knew About Memos
  
• U.S. Presidential Libraries
  
• Video:  Top Intelligence Republican:  Ready Fire, Aim