Obama outdoes Bush and Quale combined, the media ignores

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,042
Reaction score
2,042
The media hung on every word out of Bush, bashing every syllable. The media still makes fun of Dan Quale's spelling of potato. Yet, this very same media completely ignores Obama's glaring embarrassing falsehoods on on hot topic subjects such as torture.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R ... 2CE309C135

OBAMA’s 100 DAYS OF ENCHANTMENT press conference WILL BE REMEMBERED for one’s reporters fawning question: What has “Enchanted you the most from [sic.] serving in this office?” Jeff Zeleny, who writes for the – wait for it – New York Times, buried hard news by becaming part of the story. However, the ho-hum presser featured important revelations on three foreign policy issues: “torture,” Iraq, and releasing state secrets. Obama’s comments on abortion and illegal immigration should have raised eyebrows, as should a series of statements that would have gotten Dan Quayle or George W. Bush crucified.

The Real Churchill Record
To defend his banning CIA interrogators of using harsh interrogation techniques against al-Qaeda operatives, Obama claimed:

"I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, ‘We don't torture,’ when the entire British – all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."

This tidbit was presumably gleaned from Niall Ferguson’s 2006 piece “Why Churchill Opposed Torture” in the Los Angeles Times, or Andrew Sullivan’s recent blog on a topic he’s exploited for months. However, as Charles Johnson has long since pointed out, it’s absolutely false. At the outset of World War II, the Chamberlain government passed Defence Regulation 18B, which allowed for the internment of anyone dubbed to be of “hostile origin or associations.” Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert records how within a year Churchill detained “tens of thousands” of “enemy aliens,” and some “were German anti-Nazi refugees…including many German and Austrian Jews.” These detainees could be held indefinitely, without benefit of habeas corpus, and the ranks soon expanded to include native Britons of suspect political views. Shortly, Sir (yes, Sir!) Oswald Mosley would be carted off, along with most of the membership of the British Union of Fascists.

Nor did Churchill hold all uniformed German soldiers in placid dignity. Many were taken to a prison known as the “London Cage,” a long-kept wartime secret, which operated from July 1940 to September 1948. Its commander, Lt. Col. Alexander P. Scotland, remarked how he would tell himself each day upon entering, “‘Abandon all hope ye who enter here.’ For if any German had any information we wanted, it was invariably extracted from him in the long run.” The (UK) Guardian reported the Cage’s “prisoners had been forced to kneel while being beaten about the head; forced to stand to attention for up to 26 hours; threatened with execution; or threatened with ‘an unnecessary operation.’” (You can read more on the London Cage here.)

Not only did Conservative icon Winston Churchill support the measure, there is every reason to believe his socialist successor, Clement Atlee, approved of Regulation 18B (which he helped implement) and presided over even worse tortures of Germans.
 
I suspected such would be the case, but given that most of that stuff was highly secret and that Churchills own painting of history is the predominant view as shown by media, is it any surprise that some might take it as fact?

Oh, I hear condi is being shown up for the demented bint that she is... here.

Not that I doubt for a second that she, like the rest of the former US (and current UK cabinet will walk away scot free.
 
@the_leander

I just watched that video, the first student asking questions was an idiot. The US did not torture Nazi prisoners during WWII? :roll: That said Condi did seem to morph into Nixon at the end and she looked very uncomfortable.
 
redrumloa said:
@the_leander

I just watched that video, the first student asking questions was an idiot. The US did not torture Nazi prisoners during WWII?

I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Certainly the UK did under Churchill, although that has now come to light. What my point was, was that very often documentaries use the waxed over sanitised "history" that Churchill himself created in his biographys. With this backdrop, is it then any wonder then that some people would accept that sanitised version over the reality?

redrumloa said:
That said Condi did seem to morph into Nixon at the end and she looked very uncomfortable.

I can still remember her address to the EU where she was actually heckled. Day one was her saying that the US doesn't torture, day two was her saying something to the effect of "that thing we said we weren't doing, well, we won't do it any more."

And the sick thing is that the people who signed off on this will get away with it, with only a handful of grunts copping any flack as a means to apease the masses.
 
There are two main types of interrogation.

The first is in which you want accurate information.
The second is where you want justification.

An example of the latter form would be the techniques used by the inquisition to get people to confess to witchcraft and therefore to validate the premise of the inquisition and to justify the churches continuation of the policy it had already decided on. Those techniques included waterboarding, for e.g.
 
BTW, to the original article -- I think there is a big difference between referencing something that someone else said that may have been wrong versus helping kids misspell potato or letting Americans know that you know how hard it is to put food on your family.
 
Ruthless yet Humane

It would be reassuring to think that somebody close to Obama had handed him a copy of a little-known book called Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies. This was published by the British Public Record Office in 2000 and describes the workings of Latchmere House, an extraordinary British prison on Ham Common in the London suburb of Richmond, which housed as many as 400 of Hitler's operatives during World War II. Its commanding officer was a man named Col. Robin Stephens, and though he wore a monocle and presented every aspect of a frigid military martinet (and was known and feared by the nickname "Tin-Eye"), he was a dedicated advocate of the nonviolent approach to his long-term guests. To phrase it crisply—as he did—his view was and remained: "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information."
 
Glaucus said:
Ruthless yet Humane

It would be reassuring to think that somebody close to Obama had handed him a copy of a little-known book called Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies. This was published by the British Public Record Office in 2000 and describes the workings of Latchmere House, an extraordinary British prison on Ham Common in the London suburb of Richmond, which housed as many as 400 of Hitler's operatives during World War II. Its commanding officer was a man named Col. Robin Stephens, and though he wore a monocle and presented every aspect of a frigid military martinet (and was known and feared by the nickname "Tin-Eye"), he was a dedicated advocate of the nonviolent approach to his long-term guests. To phrase it crisply—as he did—his view was and remained: "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information."

Looks like Slate either fell for the cover up or happily perpetuate the lie.

prisoners372ready.jpg


The postwar photographs that British authorities tried to keep hidden
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006 ... nformation

For almost 60 years, the evidence of Britain's clandestine torture programme in postwar Germany has lain hidden in the government's files. Harrowing photographs of young men who had survived being systematically starved, as well as beaten, deprived of sleep and exposed to extreme cold, were considered too shocking to be seen.

As one minister of the day wrote, as few people as possible should be aware that British authorities had treated prisoners "in a manner reminiscent of the German concentration camps".

Many other photographs known to have been taken have vanished from the archives, and even this year some government officials were arguing that none should be published.

The pictures show suspected communists who were tortured in an attempt to gather information about Soviet military intentions and intelligence methods at a time when some British officials were convinced that a third world war was only months away.

Others interrogated at the same prison, at Bad Nenndorf, near Hanover, included Nazis, prominent German industrialists of the Hitler era, and former members of the SS.

At least two men suspected of being communists were starved to death, at least one was beaten to death, others suffered serious illness or injuries, and many lost toes to frostbite.

And Col. Robin Stephens??

The only officer at Bad Nenndorf to be convicted was the prison doctor. At the age of 49, his sentence was to be dismissed from the army. The commanding officer, Colonel Robin Stephens, was cleared of a charge of "disgraceful conduct of a cruel kind" and told he was free to apply to rejoin his former employers at MI5.

Just because there was a cover up, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
You're most likely right, but the time frames don't match up. The Slate article was during WW2, your article was post WW2. And in fact, the time frames do not coincide with Winston Churchill's time in office. Although I admit I'm somewhat skeptical that the Brits didn't use systematic torture during ww2, I don't think we see much evidence that they did. In which case, Obama's remarks can't really be compared to W's.
 
Post war Germany was a total disgusting mess. It was a time when the allies were exacting revenge. Lots of Germans died in camps or on the march after the war. It was also a time to find new enemies and the commies (Hitlers old favourite enemy) seemed like a good place to start. Like I said above, there is a difference between the kind of methods you use when you want good intelligence, and when you just want scandalous and alarming confessions.
 
@Jim:

I've been following this discussion for a couple of days and still can't figure out what your overall point is. I saw Obama's speech and as soon as he mentioned Churchill I thought it was a poor example but I did *not* think it made any difference to the salient matter, namely that torture is evil and counter-productive. This point stands whether Churchill was torturer-in-chief or not.

So I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify for me exactly what your point is:
Are you saying that because Obama may have cited a poor example to make an otherwise perfectly valid point, his point is no longer valid?

Are you saying that because the British tortured people before, you're totally against it?

Are you saying that because the British tortured people before, you're fine with your own country doing it?

Is it simply that you think using Churchill as a poor example when explaining why torture is 'bad, mmmkay?' is as deserving of ridicule as mis-spelling potato?

Or is it something else entirely?


For my own part, I think Churchill was a murdering bastard who also happened to be a great leader.
Mr Bush was a murdering Bastard and possibly the worst leader of any country I've ever seen.
Obama? He'll almost certainly end up a murdering bastard (indeed, there's some indications that he already is). It's too early to tell if he'll also be a great leader but I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who can find their own arse with both hands that he'll be far better leader than the last guy.
 
Back
Top