Thursday, April 26. 2007
Congressman Expresses his Wish that Terrorists Kill Families of EU Parliamentarians
Posted by Joerg Wolf in Transatlantic Relations on Thursday, April 26. 2007
Dialog International has the C-Span video of the frank debate. At the end of the video clip, US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher angrily retorts:
Well, I hope it's your families, I hope it's your families that suffer the consequences [of a terrorist attack].Personal Comment: If Representative Rohrabacher were a European, thousands of US newspapers and blogs would complain about wild Anti-Americanism in Europe and Schadenfreude etc. The German press and blogs, however, just ignore Rohrabacher.
CORRECTION: It seems that Rohrabacher did not address the members of the EU parliament, but some American citizens in the audiences, as our reader Fuchur pointed out. Thank you for the correction and informative comments. Though, it should be pointed out that Rohrabacher and the EU parliamentarians were engaged in a lively debate on a controversial issue, as the video and the VOA article demonstrate.
"The German press and blogs, however, just ignore Rohrabacher."
That is exactly what I said recently here. Why should we care?
It is not up to american congressmen to decide who is going to be the next victims of terrorists. So he may as well hope that we will all die from a meteorite strike :D
It's just a variation from the usual "Smite them, O Lord!" Makes me feel even more enlighted ;)
Im not sure if your commentary is meant to highlight the German press's stoicism in comparison with American press's fixation on anti-Americanism, but youre picking the wrong fight. Pretty sure Americans are as desensitized to European America-bashing as Europeans are to American hyperbole. By the way, Rorhrabacher is known for being a bit overzealous, as evidenced by his congressional record "(Dana Rohrabacher has sponsored 110 bills since Jan 6, 1999, of which 85 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor)" - source www.govtrack.us.
Let him talk while realizing that you, Joerg, are a representative of the German press, like it or not.
Yes, it was meant to "highlight" this aspect.
Highlight sounds pretty strong. It was more an observation.
"Pretty sure Americans are as desensitized to European America-bashing as Europeans are to American hyperbole."
I agree.
But: I also think the US blogosphere complains more about European Anti-Americanism than the German blogosphere complains about US hyperbole. But then again, there is quite a bit of Anti-Americanism in Germany. Besides, the US blogosphere is obviously bigger than the German blogosphere.
Besides, the US and German blogosphere might not be representative of the US and German people, which might be pretty "desensatized" as you say.
Anyway, I guess, the point I am trying to make in many of these posts is: Yes, dear American friends, you are right there is a lot of Anti-Americanism in Germany/Europe, but American media and politicians are not boy scouts either. So please, put Anti-Americanism in perspective.
Should we still cover Anti-Americanism and Euro-Bashing?
One the one hand it is sort of important for transatlantic relations in the long term, but on the other hand, perhaps we should ignore the idiots on both sides. Or accept the fact, that people get angry and say sometimes things they would not normally say.
And the media is interested in making a lot of money and deal with the loss of recent years. Thus they publish sensationalist nonsense.
Speaking as someone who lives in the district Rep. Rohrabacher represents I must admit that many of us like him but often don't pay any attention to him. He, like many effective congressmen, is sensitive to constituent services and in exchange is given much slack on some of his more hair raising public comments.
This is one of those issues that leaves one side squatting solidly atop a moral high ground. While the other side is forced into hair-splitting definitions of what torture is and how much is a good thing. No one in Congress wants to have quotes attributed to them, showing up on C-Span or YouTube, justifying anything that even remotely appears to condone torture.
The video is interesting in that a US congressman is blithely speaking about torture and kidnapping as perfectly normal - even necessary - activities.
Your refusal to hold your own elected official accountable for this speaks volumes.
What? Should he hope that American families suffer the consequences of Europeans' actions?
That's what you're implying.
It's actually stupid. We should hope that no one sufferes the consequences of European knee-anti-Americanism.
But if somebody has to, it should be Europeans themselves.
I'm sure that's what he was getting. But he should have let his brain catch up with his mouth.
This just goes to show why people with nothing at stake in a matter have no right to any say in it. Europeans drive drunk in their decisions that only OTHER peoples will have to suffer the consequences of, especially us Americans. What's it to Euros if we die because of what they say and do and the geopolitical games they play?
No one has any right to make a choice that only OTHERS will experience the consequences of.
It's common sense. A law of nature. It's in our genes to resist such impositions. You learned that as a kid when some kid came up to you and said, "Shut your eyes. Now open your mouth."
You opened your eyes instead.
So why do the intellectually superior Euros find this concept so difficult to grasp?
If Europe has control over our actions, if we need Europe's permission to defend ourselves.... Well, let's just say that nobody in their right mind would allow that.
I wouldn't give a country we could trust that right. But EUROPE? Hostile Europe, which must cross the US at every turn? which must sympathize with the devil himself against us?
Give me a break.
One of the cases under discussion was the kidnapping and torture of a German citizen (Khaleed el-Masri). Should the EU just stand by and allow that to happen?
I fear that decades from now historians will look back on this era and ask: why didn't more Americans speak out against these violations of their most cherished principles?
Check your logic, Joerg. It's screwed up.
Rohrabacher says that he hopes it's European families who suffer the consequences of any terrorist attack that results from European opposition to our efforts to prevent them.
You didn't put it quite that way. Why did you misrepresent him as simply hoping that Europeans die in terrorist attacks?
I am extremely suspicious of your motive for doing that.
Now here is your comment:
"Personal Comment: If Representative Rohrabacher were a European, thousands of US newspapers and blogs would complain about wild Anti-Americanism in Europe and Schadenfreude etc."
By this, you characterize Rohrabacher's remark as anti-European and as scadenfreude. Stupid as is was, it wasn't THAT.
What, Joerg? Is any angry word directed at Europe anti-Europeanism? That's ridiculous.
Anti-Europeanism would be something like 'Europeans are stupid, uneducated hicks who have a love affair with violence and can't find New York on a map.'
You know - bigotry, group hatred and denigration. Are you that fuzzy on the precise meanings of words?
By your implied definition of anti-Europeanism, we must say only warm fuzzy things about Europe in order to be innocent of anti-Europeanism.
But your double standard is showing. For you also frequently say say that most negative things Europeans say about us are not anti-Americanism.
And you see scadenfreude in Rohrabacher's remark? Where, pray tell? Where was his glee? You know, like the glee in Europe over the electrical blackout and Hurricane Katrina.
Are you not just grasping at things to rub with as George Orwell described political thought on the left? You grasp at that one straw and trump it up into proof equal in weight to years of nostop America-bashing in Europe for the usual leftist defense: "See, you're just as bad we are!"
Not.
Jörg and David: It seems that the youtube-video gives a wrong impression: Apparently Rohrabacher's outrageous remark was [b]not addressed at the members of the EU parliament[/b], but at some American citizens in the audience:
I just came across this report by US Army Reserves Colonel (Retired) Ann Wright, an anti-war activist who apparently attended the hearing in the audience: [url]http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/21501[/url]:
[i]When citizens attending the hearing, including members of Codepink Women for Peace and Veterans for Peace, heard Rohrabachers statement, they collectively groaned. Then, much to the shock and disbelief of everyone in the hearing room, Rorhbacker said to those who had expressed displeasure at his statements: "I hope its your family members that die when terrorists strike."
At that point, I had had enough of Rohrabacher. I stood up and said "... Rohrbacks statements are outrageous. No wonder the world hates us!"[/i]
Needless to say, this does not make Rohrabacher's remark any less heinous... And of course I disagree with Col Wright on one point: We do not hate the US. It's people like Rohrabacher we hate.
Fuchur,
Thank you! I will read this after work and then probably have to rewrite the post in the evening.
Keep on turning rogue states into failed states, trample human rights, make the CIA an international Gestapo - and pay the price for your security yourself, Gringo.
This is just typical of the US scene: the Americans feel so superior to the other people of the world that they do not even need to conform to a modicum of decorum.
Another case was Mr. McCain's singing of bombing Iran. I cannot imagine any leader anywhere in the world being so cavalier - excepting Israel.
Their arrogance knows no bounds.
So when Pres. Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "As the imam said(Ayatollah Khomeini) Israel must be wiped off the map." That's must be the exemplar that the US must follow.
[url]http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/iran-threatens-israel/2005/10/27/1130400306600.html[/url]
Ahmadinejad was mis-quoated.
But the fact remains that now that the two-state solution is no longer viable, the only other reasonable alternative remaining is the bi-national state.
But a bi-national state, by definition, will be the end of the Zionist Land-Grab project and end of Israel as is known today.
Pat, I'll explain it to you:
Achmadinedschad didn't say it, but what he really meant - ahem, what he really would have meant if he would have said it, but he didn't - was - sorry: would have been - that Jews and Palestineans should live in peace and harmony! You have to understand that he used "wipe from the map" in a positive, constructive sense - not in the "wipe from the map"-sense. He was speaking metaphorically. Like, when you say "I'll kill you" it often means "I love you", you see? I mean, what kind of a stupid idea is this anyway? You can't just base your conclusions simply on what someone said or on what he didn't say! You always have to try to understand what he might really have meant by it.
And, in case you wanted to ask: No, Achmadinedschad could not just have spoken up and put things right when the evil Western media misquoted him. That would have been absolutely impossible. Out of the question. I mean, for example, would the Pope speak up and correct himself when he felt that he was misunderstood? Of course he wouldn't, so why should Ahmadinedschad?
Very Funny!
You guys do not seem to have grasped that on the issue of Shoah and Israel you have lost the argument and also the trust of the Muslim people everywhere.
What Mr. Ahmadinejad says is what hundreds of millions of Islamic people think. And in my estimation, 2 out of 3 Muslim head of state or head of government agrees with him but is afraid to say it.
We are not interested in your "Historical Responsibility" to Jews, the semi-religious status that you have conferred unto Shoah and the rest of your kitsch (the six-million, Ann Frank, etc.).
What we want to know is what are you prepared to do to realize the rights of the Palestinian people.
So, what are you prepared to do?
Are you willing to impose economic sanctions on Israel in order to force her to leave the West Bank and East Jerusalem?
If you care about Israel, you'd better give that country some tough love before the next war.
"What we want to know is what are you prepared to do to realize the rights of the Palestinian people.
So, what are you prepared to do?"
Uhm why should we do anything than provide support for negotiations to maintain the small amount of stability? What would the palestinian people provide us with in trade?
Zyme:
There is a war between Judaism and Islam in Palestine. This is a religious war.
With a lot of work by many different states, the parameters of this war may be (no certainity there) reduced to a nationalist war; the end of which may be negogiated.
Are you prepared to help?
Of course we will help to reach the outcome that will be most advantagous for Europe. And stability in the middle east is always in our trading interests.
So what obstacles do you see here? I don´t see any.
The major obstacle that I see is that you are not willing to compell Israel in any way - there is just absolutely no chance for that in EU - under the shadow of Shoah you are excusing every dastardly act comitted by that state (example: shooting the Palestinian medics.).
You can´t expect Europe to interfere into foreign affairs just because of smaller incidents. Israel has little ressources and is a good customer of our arming industries (as long as they actually pay for the goods^^).
Since the palestinian people has little economical volume, unfortunately I see little interest into actual interference there.
Then I submit to you that you cannot be of much help in bringing stability or peace to the Middle East.
My recommendation to you is then to remain neutral - to wit I suggest you disengage politically from the Middle East.
That means that you will leave the Quartet, the EU-Iran Nuclear Negogiations, etc.
"Then I submit to you that you cannot be of much help in bringing stability or peace to the Middle East.
My recommendation to you is then to remain neutral - to wit I suggest you disengage politically from the Middle East."
It rarely is advisable to chose extremes. Just because it doesn´t make sense for us to interfere, it does not have to mean it would make sense to completely withdraw. A participation in negotiations allow us to "keep our foot in the door" as we say in Germany, just in case a new situation arises.
"That means that you will leave the Quartet, the EU-Iran Nuclear Negogiations, etc."
Try not to mix up the Israelian question and the nuclear question in Iran. In the latter one we have a vital political and strategical interest to prevent the establishment of another nuclear power.
You had implicitly stated earlier that your interests are driven by economic benefits that you derive from your relationship with Israel.
I therefore concluded that the primary driver of your thinking is monetary benefits.
If you remain neutral you can sell to all and but from all.
Leave it to the heavy weights such as US to take sides and get politically engaged.
And you are wrong: in the Middle East every thing is related to everything else. We in Iran have laid claim to Islamic Leadership - we cannot accept the 3rd holiest shrine in Islam to be under the control of Israel.
"Leave it to the heavy weights such as US to take sides and get politically engaged."
Ahm - what could that particular "superweight" do? :)
"And you are wrong: in the Middle East every thing is related to everything else."
Where did I say that those things are not related to each other? I asked you not to mix them up!
"If you remain neutral you can sell to all and but from all."
That´s exactly what is intended - by supporting negotiations between both sides.
Fuchur-Thanks, that helps me understand. Now I know that when Khruschev said, "We will bury you." What he really meant was that he planned on digging people up and reanimating them. I actually like many Russian films but I must have missed that one.
---This is just typical of the US scene: the Americans feel so superior to the other people of the world that they do not even need to conform to a modicum of decorum.---
We can argue whether the statements of said Congressman are anti-Europeanism... but taking this statement from one individual and drawing conclusions about *all* Americans from it definitely is anti-Americanism. And it defeats every case you might once have had. So, Kudos to that.
Naomi Wolf has rediscovered Fascism in the US, as detailed in the delicious-linked sidebar of her piece in the Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html
This is such an overbeaten cliche that one is tempted to yawn or even have a little nap, but I did find a few amusing bits. In particular Naomi appears to have found her Yankee Black Shirts:
"3 Develop a thug caste"
(...) "Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000."
Identical shirts and trousers, Naomi? I've never heard THAT particular detail before, although I do recall the episode. Those 'angry young Republican men' showed up at the Florida re -re-re-re-counting (the political version of the 1972 Olymic Men's Basketball final). Forgive me if I left out a few re's give or take.
Had they held a more appropriate political affiliation they might well have been tagged as 'activists' but as we all know the GOP cannot have activists. They showed up, made trouble, picketed, and shouted slogans. Made a little ruckus (not much really - no violence was reported). After the 'election' was 'resolved' they were not reported again. These are Naomi's Blackshirts.
Hmmm. Ok. It's a given that the storm troopers of any regressive political movement (such as the one I am a proud member of) need a snappy nickname (even if they left the stage of history after less than a week). Blackshirts, Brownshirts, 'red Brigades' - all taken.
Why don't we call these vicious, unprincipled, and irredeemably evil if non-violent criminals (last spotted running GOP Get Out the Vote efforts in 2004) - what?
How about "The Blue Blazers"? The annals of Totalitariansim now contain the blackshirts, brownshirts - and Karl Rove's GOTV operation. Heretofore called the Blue Blazers....
Reminds me of a comment Tom Wolfe once ascribed to Jean-François Revel "a French socialist writer who talks about one of the great unexplained phenomena of modern astronomy: namely, that the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe."
Amerikkka the Third Reich. Again. Only shouldn't it really be the 666th Reich or something by now?!!!! Snicker....
Wintermute:
I am quite familair with the US scene. The hubris in the United States is quite real and is not confined to her political classes. The general population also shares in it - they believe themselves to be capable of doing no wrong and, furthermore, that those who oppose them are somehow evil. Note the vilification of France in US after the French Government opposed US war on Iraq in 2003.
If you think Representative Rohrabacher is an isolated case then you do not know the American society.
This is not anti-Americanism - it is a general observation.
"The general population also shares in it - they believe themselves to be capable of doing no wrong and, furthermore, that those who oppose them are somehow evil."
Now you won´t catch me often at defending the US, but this is such a point: There surely are american people like this, but you have these everywhere. Just look at the French! :)
There are even such in Germany, who want to have our country to have as much power as possible since ("because of our special past") we have "special responsibility" and unlike others "have learned from the past". It is unclear however whether they all really mean it :D
Interesting point, pen Name. I think it's true. Funny thing though - I've observed this trait (unable to do wrong) amongst Eureans, Arabs, Asians, Russians, people from South America, etc.
I might even think it was a general human trait - had I not been already informed (by my betters) that it's exclusive to the US.
Mea culpa maxima....
My Goodness - stop being so defensive!
What do the chinese say: keep smiling :)
I thought it was irony, Zyme. Heavy irony.
Apparently it's not, or so you seem to be informing me.
'Irony is in the eye of the beholder'? It would seem not.
How's this: Irony is in the eye of the European'?
"If you think Representative Rohrabacher is an isolated case then you do not know the American society."
@Pen Name,
Sadly, you are correct. He represents about 1/3 of Americans, which roughly corresponds to President Bush's approval ratings.
The other people in the world do not have leaders that sing about bombing a sovereign state and making fun of that.
The other people in the owrld, do not have leaders that wish their allies, in public, death & destruction because of tactical & not substantive disagreements.
And finally, no country in the world except US has the ability to damage other states with impunity.
This last condition is perfectly well understood and absorbed by the American people; that's why they talk lightly of going around looking for enemies and picking fights. It is engrained.
You are quite right that not every one in US is like that - those people who aren't are a minority prople.
And I understand that many people identify with their states: "My Country - Right or Wrong". But those peoples and their states are incapable of destructioin that US is capable of.
That is what I find disturbing - an bored population that craves war for amusemnt because it finds its victory assured.
Perhaps I am wrong and I am misreading the United States.
This is just one man's opinion.
So, once again we see Europeans announcing what Americans think, and all, or atleast 1/3 of Americans, are thinking whatever is convenient for your argument. And you spout cliches which you then support with stereotypes. Let me help you out with a little dose from the land of reality. You do not know what Americans think. You know what you prefer to percieve them as thinking.
Yes, David is American.
And Pen Name is not European either. He is Iranian as he has mentioned a few times.
Yes how could I have forgotten this :)
Maybe we should include national tags at each posting - so that the fronts are clear ^^
---So, once again we see Europeans announcing what Americans think, and all, or atleast 1/3 of Americans, are thinking whatever is convenient for your argument. And you spout cliches which you then support with stereotypes. Let me help you out with a little dose from the land of reality. You do not know what Americans think. You know what you prefer to percieve them as thinking.---
Great. So the Americans don't understand the Europeans. And the Europeans don't understand the Americans. Maybe we could try to use this forum to get rid of some of misconceptions about each and try to gain some understanding rather than engaging in name calling and stupid catfights? Because, honestly, I think we've had enough of these things on tons of other websites and I always thought the level of discourse on AR was a tad higher...
(By the way: I'm from Germany, so make of that what you want.)
Elzbth:
I do not know what 300 million people think.
I know what some of those that I know think.
I stand by what I have said.
from the delicious sidebar:
"Wolfowitz should do the bank a service and face the consequences" as the current situation is "not acceptable", development minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul told the newspaper."
And this (hat trip to Medienkritick):
"Imagine that a top civil servant at a major multinational institution arranges a job for a fortysomething female colleague that comes with a $45,000 raise and brings her yearly salary to about $190,000, tax free. Now imagine that the couple has been photographed at a nudist beach--him wearing nothing but a baseball cap.
The latest sordid twist in l'affaire Wolfowitz? Not at all. This is the story of Günter Verheugen, first vice president of the European Commission in Brussels."
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2007/04/what_double_sta.html
Paul and Günter both must go, along with the (belated) resignations of several UN officials. Anything else is not justice or ciontrition. It's nothing but petty payback.
Verheugen will survive it I am willing to bet. As long as he is supported by the biggest country in the Union, what might harm him? :)
And how is this not the rankest hypocracy, Zyme?
It´s difficult to explain :D
I will try my best when I have time - it´s time to go to the beer garden now :)
Ok now I´ll give it a try:
Verheugen is - aside from the commission president - the dominating superweight in the European Commission. So he is a decisive figure in the body that governs some 500 million people in Europe. And he is german - german politicians of every established party would be absolutely stupid not to do everything to make this flaw disappear.
Wolfowitz however belongs to a political movement that no more enjoys the support in its own country it once did - so you can´t expect him to prevail against massive foreign opposition.
So the main difference between both cases is not the details themselves, but the niveau of national support I would say.
So what you're saying is that Germans are tribal about this issue (ie they rather have a corrupt German there than no German at all?).
Verheugen is about the most influential member of the Commission because he was responsible for its eastern enlargement and now is responsible for "Industry".
"ie they rather have a corrupt German there than no German at all?"
No european country would behave differently I am sure. This club is about power :)
There is a link from Bloomberg about the Wolfowictz case:
"Girlfriend Salaries for Everyone at World Bank".
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=aN24BW8B5Kqo
According to Bloomberg, the salary paid to Shaha Riza was not anything special at the World Bank. The World Bank has an administrative budget of $1 billion a year, spread out among 10,000 employees. That is $100,000 per head.
"according to the 2006 annual report, a senior professional, or ``G'' level employee, starts at $92,230 and can go up to $167,860, a little more than the $165,200 for a member of the 110th Congress. A manager, or ``H'' level staffer, can make $226,650. This was the category for which Riza was on the shortlist."
So it appears that Shaha Riza is overpaid - like almost every other employee at the World Bank. Not excluding Wolfowitz, who makes $400,000.
The problem for Wolfowitz was the fact that the way the rules were interpreted he had to transfer Shaha Riza OUT of the World Bank because of the personal relationship. No other place pays nearly as well, so Ms. Riza would have had an excellent basis for a lawsuit had she been forced to go (for example) to the State Department. At half the pay. Unlike Günter Verheugen Paukl Wolfowitz did not have the opportunity to place his girl friend under him at a high salary.
The salary paid to Shaha Riza at the State Department was apparently no higher than she could have expected had she stayed on her career track at the World Bank. Now opportunists are using this fact to force Wolfowitz out - while supporting Günter Verheugen - really did what Wolfowitz is accused of.
Hypocracy from our German friends, who recently called for Wolfowitz resignation while supporting Verheugen. Hypocracy also from the World Bank staffers, who want to get rid of Wolfowitz without giving up their extremely fancy tax-free salaries.
Time for a pay cut all around.
I can't shed any tears for Paul Wolfowitz. As a Bush crony and a key architect for the Iraq War debacle Wolfie deserves to rot in Hell.
I rarely reply to criticism that is not based on fact, but the reporting by Atlantic Review on my comments about torture during a foreign policy hearing, reflects a wide spread misrepresentation of what I actually said, much less meant. You were honest enough to print a correction when it was clear that my remarks were directed toward some American activists who had just expressed their contempt for the point I had just made, and not at the Europeans who were testifying at the hearing. Well thanks for correcting half of the misreporting. Getting to the point, At no time did I say that I wished anyone's families to be killed or attacked by terrorists. After explaining that I believe inflicting pain on a captured terrorist is not immoral or wrong if the next terrorist attack is thwarted and thousands of innocent lives are saved. At that point a number of American activists in the audience made their disapproval clear. My often misquoted answer was to suggest that if they succeeded in preventing such interrogations I hoped their families would suffer the consequences of the policies they were advocating. The fact that so many of them came away thinking that I had wished their families to be victims of a terrorist attack suggests that down deep they recognize the restrictions they would put on interrogating captured terrorists will indeed lead to more successful terrorists attacks, with all the death and destruction that results from such attacks. Whatever is in their head, what is significant is that at no time did I wish anyone, their families or any one else, to be the victim of a terrorist attack. Just the opposite, I am willing to advocate openly a position that I believe will prevent not all but some of such attacks, thus saving the lives of innocent people, including the lives of activists who strongly disagree with me. Misquoting me has permitted holier-than-thou chest pounding. Well, disagree with my position and pound away, but don't base it on something I didn't say and do not believe. DANA ROHRABACHER
Dear Congressman Rohrabacher,
The fact is, you are advocating torture - an act that is expressly prohibited under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
The fact is, there is not a shred of evidence that torturing detainees has saved any lies. On the contrary, your torture policy was a recruiting bonanza for terrorist organizations around the world, and led to an increase of attacks on members of the US military and our allies.
It is ironic that you profess to care about the well-being of Americans, when you just voted to phase out Medicare - the one program that has contributed to the well-being and extended the lives of Americans since it became law in 1965.
'The fact is, there is not a shred of evidence that torturing detainees has saved any lies.'
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,436061,00.html
And speaking of shreds of evidence, how about a few to back up your claim that 'your torture policy was a recruiting bonanza for terrorist organizations around the world, and led to an increase of attacks on members of the US military and our allies.'
From the BBC:
'US intelligence agents focussed in particular on one of Bin Laden's couriers - a man identified as a protege of captured al-Qaeda commander Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The Kuwait-born courier's nom de guerre - Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti - was reportedly given to US interrogators by detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, US media reported. It took years of work to identify his true name, Sheikh Abu Ahmed.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13257330
So it appears that KSM himself might have given up the guy that lead us to bin Laden. Any comment, Dave?
Why not? How is that statement that a thousand atmospheric statements by European politicians supporting anything that makes terrorism harder to contain? SWIFT? Passenger data? BAD intelligence coming from amateurishly incapable Europeans spooks that are then used as criticism of US actions?
All that, and suddenly it's a few words that can kill?
The very fact that David would leap to amplify any -words- that can be used by non-Americans to impune his political opponents in America is quite telling. He's better be actually being paid for his effort by the FSB, and not giving his efforts away like the Red Brigade, CNDUK, and the Baader-Meinhof supporting types of old.
I'm curious to see what vote David is referring to especially since Rohrabacher's field office also said they were unaware of any vote that cut Medicare, either by funding or eligibility, in the current or the last session of Congress. Would he like to change the system, undoubtedly, but their is no bill that calls for a 10% reduction unless with passage it would cost 10% more.
Contact Us
ar-team AT atlanticreview.org
We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.
Subscribe and Follow
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.
Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.
Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.
Sponsor
SUPPORT THIS SITE
or 
:Blogroll
Hot Topics
Afghanistan
Anti-Americanism
Economics
Iran
Iraq
Merkel
Polls
Terrorism
Click here for the full list of all topics.
