Photo, Past Statement Prove Palin Lied about Opposing Bridge to Nowhere

The McCain campaign is brazenly promoting the lie that Sarah Palin consistently opposed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere pork project in 2006 that they even included this false claim in a new ad.
We’re not going to “allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.”
— Palin

It ought to be problematic for them that the record shows that Palin wholeheartedly supported the Bridge to Nowhere when it was first proposed. Evidence of this includes the photo above showing Palin holding a T-shirt promoting the giant pork project, as well as this statement to a local paper:

“I’m hearing from a lot of Southeast residents who believe that maybe they haven’t been given their due respect,” she said. “Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.”

She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project.

“We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,” Palin said…

“There needs to be a link between Ketchikan and its future and its future opportunities and progress, opening up land in this area,” she said.

It ought to be problematic for them to promote Palin as Maverick when the record shows she has egregiously flipflopped on one fo the most controversial issues of the day — but it probably won’t hurt them at all.

This is another instance of Republicans setting ground rules for Democrats and then flagrantly breaking their own rules when it suits them.

For example, it is permissible for Republicans to impeach a Democratic president over something as minor as lying about an extramarital affair in a civil deposition, but it is outrageous to suggest that a Republican president might be impeached for falsifying his reasons for taking the country to war, or for treasonously exposing a CIA program tracking WMB in order to enact political revenge.

In 2004, Republicans used John Kerry’s two opposing positions on the war — he was for it before he was against it — to disqualify him from the presidency. But now that they have a vice presidential candidate who has taken two diametrically opposed, but both politically expedient, positions on the most controversial pork project of all time, they’re simply ignoring her strong support in the beginning while they promote her as a maverick for opposing it after the political winds changed.

Ask Dr. Democrat: Did We Always Have Superdelegates?

Dear Dr. Democrat:

Did we always have super delegates? I don’t remember ever hearing the term before this year.

Unsure About Supers

Dear Unsure:

The super delegates were added after the McGovern nomination in order to prevent the party from ever again nominating high-minded, wine-sipping, arugula-munching intellectual elites who don’t stand a chance in the general election. Obviously, it has been an abysmal failure.
doctordemocrat.jpg
But seriously, the purpose of the super delegate system is to stop a too-liberal, unelectable candidate in a close election from getting the nomination at the convention. The idea was that if it should ever come to pass again that the hoi poloi gave the popular vote to an unelectable effete, the super delegates, who are mostly current or former elected officials, would step in and save the day by choosing a more palatable (i.e., conservative) candidate.

It’s popular to cast Clinton as being evil because she might play this card, but the card was put there to be played. That being said, I don’t think she’ll do it — and if she tries, I don’t think the supers will go for it. Feinstein and even Schumer have signaled they won’t vote for her.

But, as the saying goes, the rules are the rules.

Dr. D

We Have Updated Our Comments Policy

Because of the presidential campaign, the tenor of some comments this year has grown more emotionally charged and inflammatory. While we put a premium on lively, informed and well-reasoned dialogue, and we don’t expect everyone to share our beliefs, we do expect a certain level of discourse. We appreciate sarcasm and snarkiness — they are our stock in trade — but we will not tolerate hate speech, insults, threats or lies. If you want to engage in those behaviors, get your own web site.

For these reasons, Pensito Review recently updated its comments policy. We now moderate messages that fall into the categories laid out below, along with others that might crop up that we haven’t anticipated. Commenters who persist in abusive behavior will be banned and their comments may be expunged.

What we consider “abusive behavior”:

Abusive language: Comments that contain racial epithets, personal insults, intimidating language, threats and the like.

Troll behavior: Comments that are primarily intended to disrupt regular discourse, annoy, harass and aggravate, to be purposefully and persistently unreasonable, or that are malicious.

Purposefully spreading falsehoods: Since it is the practice of certain ideologues to spread falsehoods, particularly about candidates (also known as “Swiftboating”), as well as to attempt to rewrite history in order to mask the nefariousness or incompetence of their leaders, we reserve the right to flag these statements as false by posting the truth within the comments.

Pensito Review News Roundup for April 1, 2008

Howard Dean has announced the Democratic National Committee will pay to hold the Florida primary again, and this time, candidates will be allowed to visit the state before the voting. Dean said the primary will be held Tuesday, Nov. 11, 2008.

Sen. Hillary Clinton says she’s quitting her campaign and will join Sen. Joe Lieberman as an “Independent Democrat.” The new party so far has two members, but plans spin-off chapters, including one headed by Ralph Nader, the “Independent Green Party,” and one led by Ron Paul, the “Independent Libertarian Party.”

Sen. Barack Obama, explaining his recent chronologically challenged anecdotes in a speech in Selma, Ala., last week, claimed he was suffering from “a temporary superabundance of audacity and a dearth of hope.”

At a press conference today Sen. John McCain gave a clearer idea of his proposed timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq: “When I learn the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, we’ll leave.”

Karen Thurman, chair of the Florida Democratic Party, announced today that the party was changing its name to #@&%$ Florida Democrats!, which is how the organization has been referred to since last fall by Democrats in other parts of the nation.

In his ongoing efforts to encourage more tourists to visit Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist unveiled a plan today to make some of the state’s more oddly named cities and attractions more palatable to visitors. Among the examples were Tallahassee, which will now be called Talltown; Orlando, which now will be Mouseville; Lake Okeechobee will become Lake OK, and the Everglades will be known as Screwed.

Ashley Dupre, the high-priced call girl responsible for the resignation of New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, explained in an interview today exactly why she was paid up to $4,000 a night to sleep with Spitzer: “So I wouldn’t giggle when he took his pants off.”

Spitzer’s replacement, Gov. David Paterson, who has admitted dabbling in drugs in his 20s and having a series of affairs while married, explained how he, a legally blind African-American man, could actually manage to have a series of affairs: “Barry White, baby,” he said.

Happy April Fool’s Day, everybody!

Pensito Review’s 2007 Nominees to the GOP Adulterers Hall of Fame

2007 GOP Adulterers Hall of Fame Nominees

The Real Threat to Traditional Marriage Is Not Gay People, It’s Adulterers – Especially Republicans Like These Who Proclaim ‘Family Values’ While Breaking the Marriage Vows

At the outset of putting together the list of nominees for the GOP Adulterers Hall of Fame this year, Richard Melon Scaife was far and away the top candidate for the top spot. The 75-year-old billionaire bankrolled the $2.3 million “Arkansas Project” to dig up dirt on the Clintons’ marriage in the 1990s — at the same time that he was ditching his first wife in order to marry his mistress — is likely to lose half his $1.3 billion fortune in a divorce settlement with his second wife (the aforementioned former mistress) because she caught him having an affair with a 43-year-old former prostitute. As GOP adulteries go, there are few more vivid examples than that.

But Scaife got edged after we inadvertently ran across at least one adulterous period in the life of Ronald Reagan — and, no, Nancy was not involved. In 1938, when Reagan started dating his future wife, actress Jane Wyman, she was married to someone else. About 10 years later, when his marriage to Wyman was coming undone, Reagan lived on and off in the Garden of Allah Hotel on the Sunset Strip, where, he would later brag, he often woke up next to women whose names he couldn’t remember.

Also on this year’s list, Sen. David Vitter, the Louisiana family values huckster whose long history of consorting with prostitutes was revealed in the D.C. Madam scandal; Huckabee advisor Dick Morris, who was caught in the 1990s having his toes sucked by a prostitute, and no less than four married male homophobes — Sen. Larry Craig, Rev. Ted Haggard, Florida Rep. Bob Allen and Washington Rep. Richard Curtis — who got caught having sex with men (or trying to) — including three who paid for sex (or tried to) — Craig, Allen and Curtis.

Without further ado…

2007 GOP Adulterers Hall of Fame
NOMINEES

  • Ronald Reagan: Lived like a Hollywood playboy during his first marriage
  • Richard Mellon Scaife: Rightwing billionaire caught by his wife in LTR with a former hooker
  • Larry Craig: Homo-hating U.S. senator nabbed seeking sex in men’s room
  • David Vitter: Another senator with a morals agenda, his hid an irresistible penchant for prostitutes
  • Dick Morris: Current advisor to Rev. Huckabee, was embroiled in a prostitute scandal in the 1990s that involved toe sucking
  • Ted Haggard: Megachurch founder, Bush advisor and professional homophobe, he was outed by a male escort in 2006
  • Bob Allen: Homophobic Florida politician tried to buy sex from an undercover cop in the men’s room of a park
  • Richard Curtis: A rightwing gay-hating Washington pol who accused a hustler nicknamed “The Stallion” of extortion

[…]

Another Dog Killed by Republicans – Blackwater Shoots Resident Pooch at NYT Bureau in Baghdad

On Monday we learned that Mike Huckabee has been accused of covering up his son’s brutal killing of a stray dog years ago. Now there is word that handlers of security service dogs employed by Blackwater, the paramilitary mercenary group with exclusive, high-level and pervasive ties to the Republican Party — and that has received over $100 million in no-bid contracts from the Bush administration — shot a dog that lived at the New York Times bureau in Baghdad:

Investigators from the State Department have made two visits to The New York Times’s news bureau in Baghdad as they look into the shooting of one of the bureau’s dogs by Blackwater bodyguards last week.

Employees of the bureau said that the Blackwater guards shot the dog, named Hentish, during a search of the Times compound for explosives. A security team was conducting the search ahead of a visit by an American diplomat.

Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, the private security firm, told Reuters that the dog had attacked one of Blackwater’s bomb-sniffing dogs.

“The K-9 handler made several unsuccessful attempts to get the dog to retreat, including placing himself between the dogs,” she said in an e-mail to Reuters. “When those efforts failed, the K-9 handler unfortunately was forced to use a pistol to protect the company’s K-9 and himself.”

It apparently didn’t occur to the Blackwater dog handler to remove the service dog from the area so that someone Hentish trusted could secure him inside. Or maybe saving the dog’s life was considered a waste of Blackwater’s precious time.

I guess we should take comfort that the Blackwater goon didn’t torture Hentish before shooting him.

Rightwing Religious Militias in Iraq Target Gays for Assassination

Leaders of Iraqi LGBT report that fundamentalist Shia militias in Iraq are tracking down and killing gay people.

Apparently life for Iraqi gays was better under a brutal secular dictator than it is today with armed rightwing religious fanatics roaming the streets.

The group’s founder, Ali Hili, says two Iraqi LGBT members were killed inside a safe house they operated in Najaf earlier this year. A young boy the two women had rescued from the sex industry was also murdered.

Iraqi LGBT has been operating five safe houses for gay people but says it has closed three of them due to lack of funding. Now the lives of the people forced out of the shelters are in danger,say Ali Hili:

Over 30 gay residents who we cared for in these three safe houses now have to take their chances in a country where religious militia regularly seek out gays and execute them. We feel deserted by the international gay community. Few people seem to care about our fate,

One member of the group said,”Nowadays, we don’t dare be seen in the neighbourhoods where we used to live. It is too dangerous for anyone known to be gay or to have had a homosexual past.”

Interestingly, Ali Hili blames the U.S. and British invasion and occupation for setting loose the homophobic killing spree:

Their armies invaded and occupied our land, destroyed the infrastructure of government, and created the chaos and lawlessness that has allowed religious fundamentalism to flourish and to terrorise woman and gay people.

Violence against gays has intensified sharply since late 2005, when Iraq’s leading Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, which declared that gays and lesbians should be ‘killed in the worst, most severe way possible’.

Since then, LGBT people have been specifically targeted by the Madhi Army, the militia of fundamentalist Shia cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, as well as by the Badr organisation and other Shia death squads. Badr is the military arm of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is one of the leading political forces in Baghdad’s

Apparently life for Iraqi gays was better under a brutal secular dictator than it is today with armed rightwing religious fanatics roaming the streets.

For information on making a donation to keep the safe houses open, visit the Iraqi LGBT website.

Book Review: American Torture — Harvesting the ‘Fruits of Information’

“American Torture,” by Michael Otterman; Pluto Press, 2007.

For most Americans, the disturbing images released in 2004 from Abu Ghraib, the notorious United States-run prison in Iraq, were the first evidence they had seen that their country conducts systematic, highly organized, brutal torture. But the fact is, as Michael Otterman so thoroughly documents in “American Torture,” U.S. military and intelligence services have engaged in codified, state-sanctioned torture for more than a half-century.

Otterman begins his dismal investigation more than 60 years ago, at the beginning of the Cold War, when the United States began developing torture techniques with the same single-mindedness, determination and Yankee know-how that it used when developing the atom bomb that ended World War II and started the Cold War. As an amateur on the torture scene — but an eager student — the U.S. looked to the experts, Russia and China, for the underpinnings of its torture program.

Torture will continue to be used as a means of terror — it works exceedingly well towards this end.

The CIA — surprise! — was at the forefront of torture research, looking variously at pharmaceutical, electrical and psychological means of extracting information from subjects. From there it was just a short hop to more sophisticated stress situations: sleep deprivation, forced standing, sensory deprivation and hypothermia.

By the 1950s, the U.S. Army was conducting “stress inoculation schools” where soldiers were exposed to torture techniques to “toughen them up” so they could withstand torture in the event of capture. It was a fertile proving ground for experimentation in advanced torture techniques and probably only resulted in a few thousand cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome in participants, a syndrome that did not officially exist back then.

Otterman coolly, with a journalist’s detachment and clear, purposeful prose, follows the codification of torture in the U.S. military and intelligence services. From there, once you’ve written the book on torture, the logical next step is to export it. So the U.S. sent torture trainers carrying torture manuals, like missionaries carrying a kind of anti-Bible, to Latin America, to Uruguay, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama.

Subsequently, torture as an export product and legitimate policy of U.S. military and intelligence services was blessed by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and, more recently, taken to new heights by our current commander and chief, George W. Bush. Under G.W., torture has been redefined, much in the way “sex” was redefined by Bill Clinton.

Today, torture is only “torture” if it causes lasting physical or psychological damage (skin scars don’t count), and then only if the interrogator who used, say, waterboarding techniques, intended to inflict lasting psychological or physical damage on the interrogatee. Of course, no interrogator would intentionally seek to hurt his target, he would only follow the prescribed guidelines of his government to extract the information necessary to fight an imaginary war on terror, right?

As Otterman points out, torture is the worst way to try to extract information (see interview with the author below). Indeed, he lauds the FBI’s use of nonviolent rapport-building tactics as yielding 1) more useful information, and 2) yielding information that will stand up in a court of law because it was not extracted via violations of a subject’s human rights. That’s why George Bush cannot allow Guantanamo detainees to go to trial — they’ve been tortured and their admissions of guilt, like their proclamations of innocence, were extracted under duress.

“American Torture” is an easy book to read, insofar as it is well-written and well-organized. But it is a difficult book to read insofar as it provides a glimpse into the horrors of torture perpetrated by American soldiers and civilians, and condoned and encouraged by their government.

If you love America and what it ostensibly stands for — fairness, freedom, justice for all — then read this book. But if you don’t want to end up hating your country because it engages in inhuman and barbaric modes of torture that deny fairness, freedom, justice for all, and you don’t want to be left howling with inchoate anger and helpless frustration, don’t read it.

Frankly, I’d rather deal with the permanent damage inflicted by “American Torture” on my psyche than live in benighted ignorance of the damage our nation wreaks on human beings in captivity every day.

Interview with “American Torture” author Michael Otterman

Pensito Review had an opportunity to ask Michael Otterman about his new book, “American Torture.” Otterman is a native New Yorker (born and raised) and wrote the bulk of the book as his masters thesis. We caught up with him in Sydney, Australia.

Pensito Review: How did you become interested in the topic of torture, American-style?

Michael Otterman: I got interested in the topic itself in April 2004, when the Abu Ghraib images were first released. I began researching the scandal as part of my Masters in Peace and Conflict Studies degree at the University of Sydney that I was completing at the time. The small university paper grew into my thesis, then I just kept writing till it took the form of a book.

PR: The book obviously was exhaustively researched and well-documented. How long did it take you to write it?

MO: All up, it took me two-and-a-half years — from mid-2004 till the end of 2006.

PR: Are there still topics that you wish you could have explored, but were prevented because the source material remains classified?

MO: I should note that my book relies exclusively on declassified U.S. government docs — studies, reports, transcripts, memos, etc. I was surprised actually just how much these documents reveal. Take for instance the 1963 Kubark manual or the 1983 Human Exploitation manual.

These are very detailed CIA interrogation handbooks — each with entire chapters devoted to “coercive techniques.” These manuals were formally declassified in 1997, with very few redactions. On the other hand, there are still documents that have not come to light. Many, in fact, were destroyed in the 1970s, especially those dealing with CIA-sponsored human experimentation.

I’ve made many FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests to the CIA, some documents were turned over to me, though others have not [been]. In particular, the agency was reluctant in releasing a CIA paper entitled “Hostile Control and Interrogation Techniques,” written in the 1950s. The only conclusion that I can draw from this denial due to “national security concerns” is that the techniques described in this document are similar to the classified ones authorized for use today. I would expect these methods to be psychological tortures I discuss in the book, namely sensory deprivation, forced standing, humiliation, etc.

PR: What was the most unexpected finding in your research?

MO: The fact that the CIA maintained in the late 1950s a safe-house in New York City, then later San Francisco, where agents would lure unsuspecting Americans so they [could] be dosed surreptitiously with LSD was quite interesting. In fact, the discovery that covert CIA funding of LSD research in U.S. universities likely jump-started counterculture interest in the drug was truly fascinating.

PR: Do you think anything can be done to stop the American government from employing torture techniques, or has it become simply too ingrained in our military and intelligence systems?

MO: Torture has been with us since day one, used throughout history to punish, terrorize and extract information. Torture will continue to be used as a means of terror — it works exceedingly well towards this end.

I do believe that awareness about the history of U.S. use of torture will turn people away from relying on it to extract information. The history shows that torture is actually the worst way to interrogate a prisoner and prevent the next 9/11. Though getting people in power to realize this is a different situation.

There are signs that awareness is slowly beginning to spread, even in U.S. government circles. For instance, the Intelligence Science Board recently reported that American psychological tortures are “outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.” See their report here
or the New York Times story on it.

PR: What is the one message you want your American readers to take away from your book?

MO: Apart from providing a larger context to the Abu Ghraib scandal and abuses at Guantanamo, I’d like to make clear that torture, especially psychological torture, should be dropped by U.S. intelligence agencies and replaced with the more reliable “rapport-building” methods favored by FBI. Torture is counterproductive, it radicalizes enemies, puts our soldiers at greater risk, destroys our moral high ground and in the end, makes us less safe.

Does torture work? OK, well it “works” if you want a false confession — this is why Stalin favored these very methods (sensory deprivation, induced hypothermia, forced standing). But, these methods do not ensure accurate and reliable information. Under torture, people say anything to stop the sensation of pain. They say things they believe the interrogator wants to hear — not necessarily the truth.

The last chapter of the book, “The Dual State,” clearly lays out an array of conclusions about torture, using the history of American use of torture since 1945 as a guide. The paragraphs begin with the following sentences in bold:

  • Torture is self-defeating.
  • Torture is unnecessary.
  • Torture does not yield reliable information.
  • Torture is corruptive.
  • SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) techniques constitute torture.
  • SERE techniques profoundly disrupt the body and mind.

The last section simply ends as the book begins, with the story of Mamdouh Habib — a tragic, cautionary account of the real human cost of torture.

For the latest from Michael Otterman, visit: www.americantorture.com