Here's what I thought you'd like to hear about today:

1. Making them Talk - Do we have ways?
2. Rumsfeld on Appeasement
3. Catching Rumsfeld in a Quiet Moment - Feeling for the Families

Download
Subscribe
Add Wizbang Podcast to iTunes

Making them Talk - Do we have ways?

James Taranto at Best of the Web Thursday listened to George Bush's speech on Wednesday, on moving the worst terrorist detainees to Guantanamo, and felt that the most important topic was torture, or rather, what some call torture. I'm going to play the excerpt from the speech that James reprinted on his blog, and then make some comments.

Play clip.

James goes on to comment on the CIA program.

Bush added:

Play clip.

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it--and I will not authorize it."

Some administration critics have argued (a) that any harsh interrogation amounts to torture, and (b) that torture cannot yield useful intelligence. These claims cannot both be true. This column accepts the president's assurances that the techniques the CIA used did not amount to torture--but if you disagree, then you have to admit "torture" works.

Opponents of aggressive questioning, then, are willing to sacrifice the lives of American civilians, including women and children, for the sake of their own moral vanity. As a practical matter, they are also willing to sacrifice the civil liberties they claim to cherish. For as we have argued many times, it is highly unlikely that our current regime of civil liberties can survive another attack on the scale of 9/11.

One of these moral vanity advocates is Andrew Sullivan of Time Magazine. He points admiringly to a blog post by Marty Lederman at Balkinization:

Here's the Administration's Cruel Treatment and Torture Authorization Act

This is the bill the Administration has sent up to Congress. Make no mistake, the most important action has little to do with military commissions (although that stuff is certainly significant, too). Instead, focus ought to be on sections 5 through 7 (pages 77-84), which are, as I predicted here, collectively an attempt to authorize the CIA to engage in the sorts of "enhanced" interrogation techniques -- e.g., hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, prolonged sleep deprivation, "stress positions" and waterboarding -- to which the President alluded in his speech today, and to immunize such conduct from any judicial review.

I can't wait to hear the assaults on the aggressive interrogation techniques by the Democrats. They will make it crystal clear that they value the comfort of out enemies more than the protection of our citizens. Instead of backing away from these techniques, Bush is working to place them out in the open for his opponents to try to oppose. Andrew Sullivan recognizes this as well:

I've learned through bitter experience that almost every time the Bush administration announces what appears to be a relaxation of its illegal and unconstitutional torture and detention policies, it's usually part of a gambit to retain and expand them.

And I hope you are ready to be open in your desire to restrict our President's attempts to save us from these demons, Andrew. In a Democracy, I have confidence that safety will trump the comfort of our enemies. I can't believe that all harsh interrogation techniques are to be considered torture, nor that no harsh interrogation techniques provide useful information. An example or two of bad information from harsh interrogation techniques, or mindless references to Abu Graib, will not change my mind, nor do I think it is a winning argument for the Democrats in the upcoming election. "Vote for me, I'll make sure the captured terrorists are kept warm and dry!" doesn't sound like a winning campaign slogan to me.

Rumsfeld on Appeasement

Rumsfeld has made many speeches lately. His remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Salt Lake City last week outlined the risks of appeasing the Islamic Fascists around the world, just as it was a mistake to appease the Nazi's in the 1930's.

I'm going to play two excerpts from that speech. The first talks about a famous quote that Idaho Senator Borah made in 1939 about Hitler. The tallest peak in Idaho is named after the good Senator. I've never known much about him. But based on this talk, I don't think I would have liked him much.

Play clip.

Later on Rumsfeld talks about the consequences of retreat on our future.

Play clip.

Catching Rumsfeld in a Quiet Moment

After that speech, he went to Fallon Naval Air Station in Nevada for another talk. This one was in front of Naval officers and enlisted men. He talked about many of the same risks of appeasing terrorists. But for the podcast I'm going to play a clip with him relating a story of the affect of his and General Casey's decision to move the 172nd Stryker Brigade to Baghdad, instead of home as they were promised. Rumsfeld is one tough old bird, but this section catches him in a rare moment of public emotion.

Play clip.