An analysis of the FULL text of the President's 8/1/14 statement about the torture report

[markpkessinger]

All this discussion of taking the President's words out of context led me to go to whitehouse.gov to get the full text of his Aug. 1 remarks on the subject Lest anyone accuse me of omitting critical context, I've even included the banter that occurred before his statement. I have taken the liberty of numbering the paragraphs of the president's statement from the point at which he begins his uninterrupted statement for the purpose of referencing those paragraphs in my discussion below:

Q What about John Brennan?

Q Africa summit?

THE PRESIDENT: I will address two points. I’ll address --

Q And Flight 17?

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on, guys. Come on. There’s just --

Q And Africa.

THE PRESIDENT: (1) You're not that pent up. I’ve been giving you questions lately.

(2) On Brennan and the CIA, the RDI report has been transmitted, the declassified version that will be released at the pleasure of the Senate committee.

(3) I have full confidence in John Brennan. I think he has acknowledged and directly apologized to Senator Feinstein that CIA personnel did not properly handle an investigation as to how certain documents that were not authorized to be released to the Senate staff got somehow into the hands of the Senate staff. And it’s clear from the IG report that some very poor judgment was shown in terms of how that was handled. Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the IG report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

(4) With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.

(5) I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.

(6) But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects. And that's the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report.

(7) And my hope is, is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things are hard. And when we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And that needs to be -- that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that, hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.

So, let's examine this a bit, shall we?

First, he states his full confidence in John Brennan, after Brennan had outright lied to the Senate and CIA personnel attempted to interfere with the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation. That expression of full confidence is, by itself, hard enough to wrap one's head around. The suggestion that Brennan's acknowledgement that things were "improperly handled" and his personal apology to Feinstein were an adequate response after the agency he heads was caught attempting to thwart Senate oversight is simply breathtaking.

The first clause of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph sets the context for what follows ("With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself&quot . He then reminds people of his prior statements, before he took office, that we did some things that were wrong in the wake of 9-11. Fair enough. Then he adds, "We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks," as if the things we did that were right should somehow offset the things we did wrong -- the crimes that were committed. He then describes those things we did wrong not as the crimes they were, but as things that were "contrary to our values."

Then comes the 5th paragraph. He starts by saying he "understand(s) why it happened." Really? Then he proceeds to lay out a list of what he apparently believes should be seen as extenuating circumstances, and admonishing us not to be "too sanctimonious" about the "tough job" the CIA had and the "enormous pressure" that was on law enforcement and security teams. But neither of these points was in dispute, and nobody was taking issue with anyone who hadn't participated in the torture program. So what he's really doing here is implying that harsh criticism of the torture program was tantamount to criticism of the entire CIA and of all security teams. But it was not and is not, and by conflating the two and telling us all not to be "too sanctimonious," he was clearly trying to soft-pedal what the CIA did, as well as to justify his own refusal to prosecute those actions for the crimes they were.

In paragraphs 6 and 7, he reminds us that he ended the program. Great. Does he want a medal for ending illegal conduct? He then states that the country as a whole must take responsibility. Again, fine, but how exactly do we do that if we refuse to prosecute those responsible? And finally, he expresses his "hope" that the country will never do it again. His 'hope?' How about some genuine accountability to ENSURE it never happens again!

So, without even considering the phrase "some folks," and without even getting into the question of whether or not the word "patriots" applied to the torturers, the statement as a whole cannot reasonably be construed to be anything other than an attempt to soft-pedal the CIA's actions and to rationalize his own refusal to hold criminally accountable those who were responsible. The overall thrust and intent of the statement is very clear.

[liberal_at_heart]

1. he didn't end the program. He just washed his hands of it by making sure it happens

outside the US borders.

[markpkessinger]

2. Good point! n/t

[Beringia]

3. and switching to drone attacks

[JaneyVee]

4. At this point, who really cares?

Everyone is arguing semantics, meanwhile, republicans are trying to teach our kids creationism, force women into childbirth, shred America's safety nets, keep wages low, and take away healthcare.

[markpkessinger]

5. I think a great many of us care that war crimes are going unprosecuted n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

7. The issue really is whether grave crimes shall remain unpunished and

vile criminals escape the reach of justice, thereby further undermining the rule of law.

I get your point, I really do, that everyone is 'arguing semantics'. But underneath those 'semantics' rest questions that go to the nature of the American experiment and whether some men and women are above the law. If the law does not apply universally, then it is absurd to speak of the 'rule of law' and we should instead speak of a caste system of privilege and prerogative. That's what the 'semantics' rest atop.

Not sure if I'm making sense, so apologize if I'm waxing incoherent.

[Autumn]

10. I care. Very much. I can pay for my health care I did before the ACA came along

I'm too old to have kids, I don't receive any aid from the government from any program in the safety net, my children are done with school I don't have to work. Please tell me why should I care what the republicans are doing?

[bettyellen]

17. you got your insurance, so screw everyone else, eh? lovely.

[Autumn]

18. Try reading what I responded to and maybe you can explain why "I"

should give a shit about just those things that you and your friend are happy to have because if any other human being was tortured "At this point, who really cares?" " lovely" is fucking right. Because who cares if anyone was tortured and broken and their human rights violated because we got some fucking rights. Fuck yeah USA You and the poster I responded to may not be decent enough to care that others were tortured because you and yours weren't but there are others of us who do care.

I am my brothers keeper and what you do unto the least of these you do unto me. lovely indeed, your post and hers.

[bettyellen]

19. Obama ended extraordinary renditions. But let's pretend it never happened, and become one issue

voters against he very person who stopped the torture, and has done so much more. Because he's a failure if he can't do a hundred things no one else ever has. We get it.

[Autumn]

20. You go on ahead. Pretend it never happened.

Only thing that matters to you and your friend up thread is Obama. You and I will never agree on most issues and we have nothing more to discuss. Have a good evening.

[bettyellen]

21. No, Autumn. Lots of things matter to me- I'm not the one crying a single issue makes us as bad as

republicans. Single issue voters fuck up the system, because they are so simple minded.

[Autumn]

23. Here's the thing bettyellen I'm not crying over a single issue.

I hate to burst your little know it all bubble. There are many issues that are important to me.

[bettyellen]

24. then I am not sure why you posted about not caring what republicans do then.....

and listing issues you wonder why you should care about.

[Autumn]

26. " At this point, who really cares?" try reading what I responded to and tell me

why I should care about those things.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025952456#post4
I find it so odd you have no problem with that post, no I guess that's not odd at all.

So Why should I care about those very important thing that many need when some don't care about basic human rights for others? After all torture does not affect me or my life. Here's a clue. I care because I am a Liberal.

[bettyellen]

28. the point is, the majority of Americans support it. So the expectation of prosecution is, I think

a bit out of left field. I guess I am just cynical, but I am pretty shocked anyone expects prosecutions. That would take widespread outcry over the issue. There isn't.

[RobertEarl]

33. I'm shocked you are not shocked

You are shocked that any of us wants the law followed and criminals jailed, and I am shocked you aren't pushing for the criminals to be jailed.

But then I guess I should not be shocked you'd do or say anything to protect Obama from Truth. Instead you attack a good DUer who merely wants justice. That is a shocking display from you betty. You should log off and take a hike. Go fly a kite?

[bettyellen]

38. Nope, I am shocked that anyone EXPECTS prosecution. I can be for it, but realistic at the same time

and wonder WTF anyone gets the idea that a sitting president will push to prosecute a former president.
Sucks big time, but it is not gong to happen- not in the current political climate. I think many who "expect it" - know damn well it could never be.

[RobertEarl]

39. Shocking display again from you

You saying we should all just forget bush and his criminal activities is shocking. That we expect bush to be brought to justice shocks you?

With friends like you......

[bettyellen]

40. It would shock me if I actually said that. That we all would like justice doesn't shock me.

But the expectation of prosecuting an ex president, and an ex vice president is pretty off the wall. It's unprecedented, and there is just not enough outrage. America doesn't give a shit, and I am way too cynical to pretend it does enough to do anything about it.

[woo me with science]

6. K&R

[Jamastiene]

8. "SOME OF"

In paragraph 6, he didn't ban all torture, just "some of" the torture.

Good analysis though. I just saw where someone else caught that and wanted to bring it up too.

And that's the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report.

[Autumn]

11. I just want to K&R for the word SOME. A nice little word, an interesting word

"one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report."

some. some. some. some. some. some

Now will anybody here go to great lengths to parse the meaning of that sentence and what Obama was really saying when he said the word some?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. And here is the full video:

One thing this shows is he didn't pause in any way at all between what the White House has written as paragraphs 5 and 6 - in my opinion, what they've put as the start of para 6 is still the same sentence as the end of para 5 (at about 3:14). I think this shows that the 'real patriots' are the people who 'did some things that were wrong' - ie the torture about which he has just been saying he understands why it happened.

[BeanMusical]

13. But, but...

You took the whole text out of context!1!!

[markpkessinger]

37. LOL! n/t

[Hatchling]

14. He starts by saying he "understand(s) why it happened."

Sure.

I also understand why an abused teenager goes batshity crazy and kills his Parents.

Doesn't mean I would do it , or that he should do it. It's still just wrong! And illegal as hell and should be prosecuted..

Understanding evil doesn't mean we should condone it.

[markpkessinger]

22. +1 n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The short version is CYA. Or, Tsk, Tsk.

[True Blue Door]

16. Byzantine word-parsing is far more constructive than actually pursuing justice.

This is some degenerate Dark Age shit here.

You make everything about one man.

[markpkessinger]

25. Byzantine word parsing?

I've simply examined what he said -- in context -- according to the plain, ordinary meaning of the words he used. In fact, I specifically omitted from my analysis any quibbling over use use of the word 'folks,' and also omitted any discussion of who, exactly, he was referring to with the word 'patriots.' I omitted those precisely to avoid 'Byzantine word parsing,' and because no matter how one chooses to interpret those particular words, it changes nothing with regard to the overall thrust of his statement. Instead, I looked at complete sentences and complete thoughts. And no matter how you slice it, it still comes up as soft-pedaling torture and rationalizing a decision not to prosecute it.

As for making "everything about one man," not at all. Responsibility for the crimes lies with those in the Bush administration who planned and carried out the crimes. I want to see them all held accountable. But the decision to go ahead with prosecutions does largely rest with one man. Well, two -- Obama and his subordinate, Holder. Obama signaled just after he was first elected that, notwithstanding his campaign rhetoric to the contrary, he had no intention of holding anybody to account for the crimes our government committed under his predecessor. And what ALSO comes down to these to men is the decision, announced by the White House in April 2009, that the Justice Department will defend any government employees or contractors who may be accused of crimes arising from their service in Iraq and Afghanistan in domestic or foreign courts. Enforcement of laws is an executive branch function, and the President is the chief executive. And in this case, he is flat out refusing to enforce the pertinent laws.

[True Blue Door]

27. For prosecutions to be legitimate, Obama has to be miles away from them.

You damn well know that. Presidents can't prosecute their political enemies.

[markpkessinger]

29. Agreed, but . . .

. . . does 'being miles away from' the investigations and prosecutions include expressing full confidence in a CIA director who was caught lying to Congress and whose agency attempted to thwart a Senate investigation by attempting to intimidate Senate staffers with threats of criminal prosecution? Does it include an announcement weeks after he was elected that he had no intention of pursuing the crimes of his predecessor administration because he wanted to "look forward, not back?"

[True Blue Door]

30. He did say he wanted to "look forward, not back."

But "had no intention of pursuing the crimes of his predecessor administration" is your interpretation, not his statement.

And John Brennan can't run the CIA if the CIA decides he's against them, can he?

The DCI will never, ever be a part of prosecuting his own Operations people who obeyed his predecessors. That will never happen. No one who would do that would be confirmed by the Senate in the first place.

[markpkessinger]

31. That comment was made . . .

. . . in the context of answering a question about holding members of the Bush administration accountable for their crimes. There really isn't any other way to interpret it.

[True Blue Door]

32. Sure there is. Obama was expressing his personal priorities, not a preference

for any other part of the government. Since the Justice Department's inherent function is to "look back," it's not even relevant.

[markpkessinger]

35. Here's the original video...

Stephanopolous specifically tries to nail him down by asking if he will instruct Attorney General Holder to investigate and follow the evidence wherever it leads. The President refuses to give a straight answer to that question, and simply reiterates his belief that it is more important to get it right going forward than it is to hold people accountable. Also, earlier in the video he talks about not wanting CIA personnel to feel as if they have to "lawyer up" for doing their jobs. He fails to mention that if they didn't do things that were in violation of U.S. and international law, they would have no need to lawyer up. You can spin this from here to next Tuesday, but you cannot escape his very clear intent here.

[True Blue Door]

36. Can you find an example in all of US history different from that?

He was expressing the purpose of his office, in my view, where his political enemies are concerned. He could not do other than focus elsewhere when asked such a question.

[sabrina 1]

34. 'We did some things that were wrong'! We started a WAR based on LIES

and slaughtered over one million human beings, and caused the deaths of thousands of our own troops.

And what did we do RIGHT? I can't think of a thing!

At a time when we need STRONG CONDEMNATION which we have been waiting for now for over a decade, of WAR CRIMES, we get this!

I wonder if whoever writes these speeches thinks we are all stupid?