Bush’s willful ignorance: Why he wanted to know as little about torture as possible (Salon)
Its happening more than 10 years too late (and in a better world it wouldnt need to happen at all), but now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has released its so-called torture report, the American people are finally having an informed debate over their governments use of enhanced interrogation during the presidency of George W. Bush. The process is not always pretty at times, in fact, it is downright chilling. But now that we know some of the harrowing details of what was done in our name, itll be easier for us Americans to step a bit closer to the mirror and see what weve become. As Glenn Greenwald put it earlier this week, Everybodys noses got rubbed in [the torture program] by this report.
Still, the human brain has an awesome capacity to reject information it finds upsetting like proof that ones leaders embraced practices refined by the Bolsheviks and the Gestapo. At least thats my explanation for why some people would rather talk about alleged partisanship than rectal rehydration. Or why theres been increasing focus on the question of whether the CIA misled President Bush about the effectiveness of the program, as well as its essential nature. The whining from conservatives over the Committee not interviewing CIA agents is a red herring, of course (as Chris Hayes has noted, arguments about process are almost uniformly disingenuous). But I think the chatter about Bush the Younger really being Bush the Clueless gets to something deeper.
<snip>
That reason has a name: Richard Bruce Cheney, also known as the United States most powerful vice president. The theory here isnt that Cheney was doing a whole lot of dirty work behind Bushs back, but rather that he had taken the gloves off with the tacit encouragement and approval of the president. As Cheney-watchers especially the Washington Posts Barton Gellman and former Cheney co-worker John Dean have noted, Cheneys experience in the Nixon administration during its final days did not lead him to the same conclusion as most of us, that an unchecked president is dangerous for American democracy, but instead to conclude that Watergate was proof that if youre going to break the law, youd better do it in a way that insulates the president. And as Greenwald noted in my interview with him this week, and historian Sean Wilentz wrote about in a 2007 New York Times op-ed, Cheney reached a similar conclusion after Iran-Contra (which, like Watergate, he believed to be a power grab by Democrats).
Plausible deniability, in other words, is the key phrase to understand what Bush knew about the global network of torture chambers and dungeons that will stand as one of the most enduring legacies of his tenure as president. And I suppose in a bitter, depressing way, thats all too fitting. Because while Bush is the American who bears the most responsibility for the evil unleashed by the United States in the wake of 9/11, the truth is that all of American society let fear and panic overwhelm its values and senses; all of American society was desperately willing to believe that impossible promise: that it had nothing to fear. And when the true costs of its panic and its terror began to float to the surface, all of American society was content to ask no further questions, and to look the other way.
Link: http://www.salon.com/2014/12/13/bushs_willful_ignorance_why_he_wanted_to_know_as_little_about_torture_as_possible/
pansypoo53219
(21,005 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)could not understand or retain it.