Four-Eight-Four [dot org]

CNN: “Attorney general dances around waterboarding issue“

Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to legally define waterboarding as “torture” during Senate testimony Wednesday, although he acknowledged that if the interrogation technique were performed on him, he would personally “feel that it was.”

Good grief, Mukasey … stop it with the “feel” crap and just give us a straight answer. It’s not like there is really any question as to whether waterboarding qualifies as torture or not.

Let’s take a look at the dictionary definition (courtesy of dictionary.com):

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

If there is any question in your mind as to whether waterboarding causes anguish or pain in light of the fact that we’ve already admitted that we might be using it to interrogate people, let’s look at what Wikipedia has to say about it:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Anybody that denies that waterboarding is torture is lying or just ignorant.

Let’s be honest here. The idiots who are ducking and dodging the issue would be up in arms if the technique was being used on our citizens.

John McCain, to his eternal credit, was willing to state unequivocally on national TV in a recent debate that waterboarding is torture and we should not, as a nation, use that technique to interrogate people. John … I disagree with you on almost every issue, and your unwarrented and off-topic attack on Ron Paul (when you claimed people like him were responsible for Hitler coming to power) really ticked me off, but you have my respect for being a man and standing up on this issue.

As I was reading more on the results of the Florida primaries tonight (” McCain wins Florida, Giuliani expected to drop out“), I ran across the following quote about Huckabee:

Huckabee told his supporters he was “playing all nine innings of this ball game.”

“Even the Cardinals occasionally have a rough inning, but they know how to win championships,” he told a crowd in Missouri.

I thought a week or so ago the campaign was saying they didn’t have enough cash to even carry them through the Florida primary, had cut salaries, and they were losing staff at a rapid clip. Last minute boost in contributions maybe?

In any case, I’m glad to see that some of the candidates want to stick with it even in the face of poor results thus far. It seems to me that dropping out at least before Super-Duper Tuesday (or “Goodbye Ruby Tuesday” as Joe Lance at TennesseeTicket.com is now calling it) is a bad idea. There’s just too much that can change over the course of the primary season.

I wish Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were sticking with us at least through next week. I’m glad to see Huckabee is (or at least he says he is).

Yesterday, CNN reported that, based on interviews with Saddam Hussein after his capture, he did not have any “weapons of mass destruction” before the US invasion, but was just bluffing (” Agent: Saddam was surprised U.S. invaded“).

“For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” said Piro.

During the nearly seven months Piro talked to Hussein, the agent hinted to the Iraqi that he answered directly to President Bush, CBS said in a posting on its Web site.

“He told me he initially miscalculated … President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 … a four-day aerial attack,” Piro said. “He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack.”

I was against the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. The major reason was that I could see no reason why the United States or any other nation should have the right to tell Iraq or any other nation what kind of weapons it could have (nuclear or otherwise), and I still firmly believe that.

Of course, at that point, the main justification for invading Iraq was the supposed “weapons of mass destruction” that Hussein had.

My theory was that Hussein had no such weapons, but he was bluffing and acting like he did because he needed to look powerful. He essentially ruled by fear, like his hero Stalin, and by admitting that he didn’t have the weapons, and/or actually letting UN teams inspect the country looking for them, he would appear less powerful, and risk a revolt. Essentially, he was gambling that we wouldn’t invade and he could save face. Remember, Hussein never claimed he had the weapons outright … he just did things like move equipment around and refused UN inspectors access to certain areas (enought to look suspicious).

I remember quite well discussing this theory with somebody at The Corner in Wake Forest at least a few months before we actually invaded (if you are the person I was discussing this with, please let me know).

As you can see, I was mostly correct. I was wrong about the ultimate motivation (fear of Iran vs. fear of unhappy Iraqis) but I was close.