Monday, January 26, 2009

Marc A. Thiessen - wrong previously, still wrong

Last week on the BBC and this week on NPR, mouthpiece and tool Marc A. Thiessen is spewing his ideological rhetoric and lies. This FORMER speech writer for W, was wrong on so many levels during the last 8 years. Now, he's still incredibly delusional, he truly believes that torture provided excellent intelligence. As the moderator on Diane Rehm's show said today "time after time, expert after expert, we've spoken to military interrogators and CIA officials who have stated torture provides false confessions". This Thiessen ideologue is SO convinced that his Führers (W & Cheney) were absolutely right, he's not listened to anyone who was actually trying to get the intelligence, or any of the authors who have written extensively on it.

MORE Americans HAVE BEEN KILLED due to inspired jihadists AFTER 9-11 than were killed ON 9-11. Torturing inspires jihadists and degrades American values, morals, international standing, effectiveness, and safety. Marc A. Thiessen, join Douglas Feith and STFU. Your party and ideology lost. Get over it.

The longer I listen to this radio show today, the more disgusted I get with the right wing nuts who are calling in. Amazing.


  1. He was in the Post, he was on Diane Rehm and he says the same thing over and over again...the gov't got evidence using torture on specific people that stopped attacks. There is no way commentators on the outside can disprove what he is saying. The only thing I can say is to repeat what some of the other guests said...studies show if you ask intel people most say that torture does not work. Other than calling the Republicans wing nuts how do you form your arguments on this issue?

  2. Rosa,
    I work with, and I am related to, many very passionate, very closed minded right wing "enthusiasts", who are unable to back up their claims about what they and their ideology stand for. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal who has a very low threshold of tolerance for unsubstantiated rhetoric. I recently finished Jane Mayer's work "The Dark Side" which describes, in excruciating detail, the futile methods used on Gitmo detainees, extracting no new evidence, and rarely corroborating strands of old evidence about what interrogators already knew from other, non tortured subjects, who professional interrogators had built rapports - NOT taking them out to lunch as Thiessen sarcastically references, but gaining their trust. There were not "ticking time bomb" scenarios that Thiessen erroneously kept referring to that torture solved.

    On the Republican side, Lindsey Graham, my former Senator, and John McCain, both persons for whom I had voted in 2000, have come out against torture. McCain himself gave false confessions while being tortured in Hanoi by his own admission - first hand knowledge.

    I use the short-hand "wing nut" because it is easier and faster to say / write than "strident conservative and nationalistic ideologues who sacrifice core American values to make short term gains while using the lessons for Rove and Goebbles to further their political agendas".

    There's several intelligent, right leaning, or libertarian readers of this blog who I have a great deal of respect for as people and friends or as co-workers, but with whom I wholeheartedly disagree politically and philosophically. So there is a distinction between "right wing" (articulate, able to debate and express an opinion backed up by evidence) and "wing nut" (spouting unsubstantiated rhetoric or abject lies) - in my perspective.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.