Thinkin’bout Stuff

I had read, with some skepticism, Malcolm Nance’s assertion that waterboarding is torture:

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique - without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called “simulated drowning,” but that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Not sure how it can be torture when applied to a prisoner but not torture when used in training.  If I pull out your fingernails in a training session, is that not torture? How about if I tie your hands and feet together behind your back and hang you from the ceiling… training?

It’s either torture or not torture in my view.  So if it is torture, and we know torture is illegal, why then is congress not demanding that we prosecute those “trainers”?

But what really got me was the assertion that pint after pint of water fills your lungs.  Have you ever aspirated anything? I have… a very small food particle.  This resulted in pneumonia that knocked me out of commission for quite some time…  for a tiny partical of food.  So I’m thinking pints of water filling my lungs would pretty much have killed me.

Turns out my hunch was right.  Found this over at Captains Quarters:

There is a word for people who have “pint after pint of water” filling their lungs: dead. “In fact,” according to Mike, “they would be very, very dead. By definition, anyone who has drowned is in fact dead. A large percentage of true drownings do not involve ANY water entering the lungs because the epiglottis closes off the air passages as water enters the throat. People who die immediately from being immersed in water actually die of suffocation, not water entering their lungs. Not only that, many people who survive a near-drowning who do have even small amounts of water that slip by the epiglottis and enter their lungs can die later of fluid shifts and pneumonia. I can assure you that we do not use any technique that involves true suffocation or aspiration of water into the lungs. One cannot get questions to answers from people who suffocate or have water fill their lungs in any interrogation technique, which would render that technique more than a little self-defeating. Dead men tell no tales — and also make rather poor soldiers.”

I am far from an expert on waterboarding, but just the fact that journalists have subjected themselves to this technique indicates to me that waterboarding is a very intense form of coercion, but not torture.

Flopping Aces has some good insight on the topic as well.

Did you miss this article when it was published in the WSJ?  I did.

Clicked a historical link over at Bottom Line Up Front and found the link to the WSJ article which was written by a former high-ranking KGB agent. What he confirms s what many of us have long believed: our enemies use our mass media as a powerful conduit for their propaganda:

The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation. We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for Truman–the leader of the new “occupation power.” Western Europe was still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty in our hands.

The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying President Truman as the “butcher of Hiroshima.” We went on to spend many years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents: Eisenhower as a war-mongering “shark” run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a “Yankees-Go-Home” petition, at the same time launching the slogan “Europe for the Europeans.”

During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America’s presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren’t facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.

The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S. from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion. Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.

Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America’s commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O’Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a “deserter.” And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, “Give Bush the Boot.”

<snip>

Now we are again at war. It is not the president’s war. It is America’s war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don’t know either. But I do know that if America’s political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: “We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West.”

Exactly!  Unfortunately, all that matters is who wins the Whitehouse and Congress… not who wins the war.

Spot on commentary at Wizbang on the brouhaha over the revelation that a Thompson advisor was convicted of selling pot 28 years ago… wonder if he inhaled?

Miss Beth over at Wake Up America slams abortion supporters, but please be advised before you click on over to the link… graphic photos of partial birth abortions that will very likely sicken you if you are human… if not, perhaps there is room for you on the Dem ticket next November… here’s the link, but again, graphic image warning.  But it’s all just hypothetical “intellectual” discussion that candidates use for political gain without ever facing the horrible reality of what is truly infanticide…  no, even that is too sanitized… this is killing babies out of convenience, period.  Let’s see a debate moderator have the guts to throw one of these images up on a large screen behind the candidates and ask them, one by one, if they support partial birth abortion… how’s that for a gotcha moment Hillary?

Bottom Line Up Front takes a look at the major victory in the war on terrorism happening in Iraq; something that is apparently not worthy of major headlines. I can’t help thinking, again, what the outcome of WWII would have been had today’s media been reporting back then and had the political climate been such that acquiring and holding power within the US government would have been more important than winning the war.  How many times would we have surrendered and pulled back to within our borders? How many hearings would we have been held to get to the bottom of all this killing going on during the war? How many soldiers would have been accused of war crimes for split second decisions made on the field of battle?  Be sure to read the reader comments too…  such as this one from Johnny:

Wow, that article by Andrew Bolt is very moving. If a tenth of it is true, I feel totally vindicated for having fought there in 2003 to take down Saddam’s Ba’athist regime. May God bless the efforts to secure Iraq!

That’s all for now… have a gret one!

Seriously?

Going into Iraq to find terrorists… bad?

Going into Pakistan, an ally in the terror war whose president has risked his life to support the United States… good?

Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) on getting tough with terrorists:

From AP: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

Hmmm.. maybe Hillary Rodham Clinton is right. What exactly warrants sending troops across the border of an allied country without permission?

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

Canada better pay attention here… there are known terrorist cells in Canada and Obama might just have to get tough on our neighbors to the north and send in the troops.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

If only we could get those terrorist holed up in those mountains, we could end this whole thing.  After all, the rest of the terrorists in the world would cease to exist if we get rid of the hole-in-the-wall gang of terrorists.  I guess it’s kind of like vampires.  If you can kill the head vampire, the others lose all their powers and just evaporate, or whatever it is vampires do when they stop being undead.

I guess Pakistan president Musharraf won’t be on the invite list to the White House along with Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad when he has his little get together with the world’s terrorism sponsors.

For the record now…

BHO was against invading Iraq, a major sponsor of terrorism with a leader who was threatening the use of chemical and biological weapons and who was trying to obtain the necessary ingredients to develop a nuclear device, and OBO proudly wears this position (not a vote, action or even a tough decision for him since he was not even in Congress to vote on the topic) on his sleeve.

However, he is now on record as saying he would have no problem with INVADING AN ALLIED NATION!

Yep.. finally found something HRC and I agree on…

More thoughts in the blogosphere on the topic:  DeMediacratic Nation, Michelle Malkin, Wake up America, Texas Rainmaker

What if… the United States leaves Iraq victorious instead of in retreat… 

What if… the “surge” works… 

What if… well… what if President Bush leads us to a victory in spite of those in Congress who throw up roadblocks and nonsensical distractions at every turn and seem resigned to a defeat that will lead to victory for them in the polls… 

What if you loved your country so much that you want us to win in Iraq but you love to hate George Bush so much you are ready retreat in shame to prove he is wrong? 

The irrational hatred of George Bush appears to be blinding many and making it nearly impossible to cut through the rhetoric to see the reality.  

But the facts on the ground are indisputable and will, hopefully, seep into the mainstream thinking of the American psyche so that perhaps we can move beyond the irrational doom and gloom surrounding the news about Iraq which is tainting the morale of a country, whose recovery from 9/11 is nothing short of miraculous, and allow us to feel good about our future, even if it does mean a few less votes for the liberal naysayers whose power continuance is so dependent on us feeling like all hope is lost. 

Thanks to Gina Cobb for highlighting a good op-ed in the NY Times that might just serve as a stepping stone to pulling ourselves out of a somewhat self-induced nightmare that is being fed by liberal hypnotists constantly reminding us how bad our lives are today. 

Only excerpting a small piece to pique your interest, but Gina has more or you can visit the NY Times via the link above: 

(By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK) VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. 

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. 

(snip)

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference. 

Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. 

(snip)

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. 

While not exactly pointing to a stroll in the park that will lead to victory without set backs, this op-ed in the NY Times, no right-wing rag, does indicate we are moving in a better direction. I know I’m rooting for us.

Even if you love hating George Bush, I hope you love your country more. 

Update: Spree over at Wake up America drives home the point… some folks have put all there chips on the US to lose and winning will cost them too much. Just like in sports, if you bet on the other team, the temptation is strong to throw the game.

Who cares how they got there or why they are there?  Al Qaeda is in Iraq, we are in Iraq, nearly seven years ago this nation woke up to a terror war that had been waged as we slept for nearly a decade and vowed to destroy an enemy whose stated objective is to destroy us, so what’s the issue here? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure this out. If we leave Iraq everyone doesn’t shake hands and go to neutral corners, they just take the ground we surrender and move the front closer to our home.

Then again, there is never-President John Kerry’s view:

From AP: In Washington, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Bush “is trying to scare the American people into believing that al Qaida is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq.” But Kerry said Bush presented no new evidence to back that up, and added: “The president is picking the wrong rationale for this war. Al-Qaida is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq.”

Um… so we should only stay if Al Qaeda kills more American soldiers? I don’t understand his point, but I do know that Al-Qaeda was the principal killer of thousands of Americans on 9/11, so tell us senator, is that rationale enough for us to stay and fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq?

This whole argument over whether Al Qaeda was there before the Iraq war or came to Iraq as a result of the Iraq war is pointless, don’t you think? 

More from AP:

Al-Qaida had no active cells in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in March 2003, and its operation there is much larger now than before the war, U.S. intelligence officers say. The war itself has turned into a valuable recruiting tool for al-Qaida, senior intelligence officials concede. Bush denied that the war triggered al-Qaida’s operations in Iraq.

Who the hell cares how they got there?! This is great news! We found the enemy… go kill them!

As far as Iraq serving as a recruiting tool, aren’t most wars valuable recruiting tools for both sides? I suppose if we surrender to Al-Qaeda there wouldn’t be much reason for them to continue recruiting… we’d all be Muslims or we’d all be dead.

I received the following comment on the An American Hero post and wanted to share it with you:

Here is a letter I wrote the Tennessean about the moving photograph of Christian Golczynski:

(it was not published)

Dear Tennessean:

The Tennessean’s April 5 photograph of young Christian Golczynski accepting the American flag from Marine Lt. Col. Ric Thompson is one of the most moving and emotion provoking images I have ever seen.

I attended funeral services for Christian’s father, Staff Sergeant Marcus Golczynski, on April 4, along with my six year-old son, dozens of Marines, and several hundred others who came to pay tribute to this fallen hero.

As one would expect, many of your readers were touched by this incredible picture. Staff Sergeant Golczynski had previously served one full tour in Iraq. Shortly before his death on March 27 he wrote to his family that he had volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to finish the job we started. In his letter he said, “We fight and sometimes die so that our families don’t have to.” Tragically, Staff Sergeant Golczynski had only two weeks remaining on his second tour. We look at the photograph of Christian every day. It is displayed prominently in our home.

Our hearts ache for Christian and for all those who have lost loved ones in this controversial conflict.

Our nation is at a historical crossroads. Do we call an end to the struggle in Iraq or press on? Staff Sergeant Golczynski eloquently told his son how he felt about not giving up. Perhaps there is a lesson for all of us in this man’s life and the choices he made. He was undeniably a man of tremendous courage and conviction. America must now choose whether to complete the job.

When looking at the face of Christian Golczynski I am reminded that doing what is right is not always easy and doing what is easy is not always right. Christian’s dad knew that too.

James Drescher

Franklin, TN

Thank you James… 

Although it may not receive the local exposure that The Tennessean would have provided, it is now exposed to the search engines of the WEB and may even get picked up by some of my bigger friends out there (hint, hint…  Wake Up America, Bottom Line Up Front, Gina Cobb)