Archive for the ‘war’ Category

God Loves Guns

Saturday, March 22nd, 2008

Based on the President’s Easter benediction, you would think God loves guns. Certainly, it’s plain: God loves strong military might.

On Easter, we hold in our hearts those who will be spending this holiday far from home — our troops on the front lines. I deeply appreciate the sacrifices that they and their families are making. America is blessed with the world’s greatest military, made up of men and women who fulfill their responsibilities with dignity, humility, and honor. Their dedication is an inspiration to our country and a cause for gratitude this Easter season.

God Bless America, may she always be right!



…..psst…what are you doing looking down here….yes, May God Bless America and may she always be right….That’s what I typed….



psstt….why do you continue to scroll down…what? We weren’t right about WMD in Iraq? My goodness, do you think we are on shaky ground here?



Psst…why do you keep scrolling down….God does live the Military, particularly ours. God thus, must love guns, no? Am I wrong?



Allah Akbar!

The Big Dick Flips Off America

Friday, March 21st, 2008

Cheney Flipping Off the American PeopleThere’s no doubt the Bush administration has an awfully high opinion of itself. The president once famously said that he couldn’t think of a mistake he’d made in office. But The Big DickTM? He has mondo-hubris.

Listen to this exchange:

Reporter: “Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting (the War of Error), and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.”

Cheney: “So?”

Reporter: “So - you don’t care what the American people think?”

Cheney: “No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn’t had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there.”

Um, Dick? I’ve studied Abraham Lincoln and let me tell you, you’re no Abraham Lincoln. I’m suspicious that you’re not even human.

Using your logic, as long as a person “has a clear objective, a vision for where he wants to go” he can do as he damn well pleases. He can ignore advice. He can show contempt for his nation and the laws that govern it. He can play the iceberg to the Titanic. Heck, he can even just toddle off on his buddy’s boat for a day of fishing as people die in the place he just left behind.

Dick, the model for that sort of behavior isn’t Lincoln, it’s Saddam Hussein. You know, that guy you went over to kick out? The one who was a baaad, baaad man who needed to be dealt with? The one who so threatened you? Surely you remember him. He was the one with the WMD that only appears after you sprinkle lemon juice on them.

Dick, I’m going to engage in some of your logic. Here’s my “clear objective and vision”: you are a dangerously megalomaniacal imbecile. You are also a man who deserves to be tossed into the trash bin of loony politicians who became so full of themselves they forgot to adhere to the “polls” that really count - the elections - the elections that put their cholesterol filled, arrogance-fattened asses in office.

I’m sad to say that I respect Saddam Hussein more than you and your idiot savant friend, George DicklessTM. At least Saddam never pretended to be anything other than what he was - a bragging despotic tyrant.

More’s the pity I can’t say the same thing for you.

Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

The House That Wouldn’t Bend Over

Friday, March 14th, 2008

You Go Democrats! For the next two weeks at least, America’s telecom executives will be just as accountable to the law as the other 300 million of us. What a concept! Why should a few VIPs have a law that specifically prevents them from ever being sued? I don’t know anybody who has that kind of permanent protective cocoon wrapped around them. Do you? We’re a nation of laws; well, for two more weeks anyway.

It didn’t exactly take an act of blind courage for Congress to stand up to a cerebrally-challenged alcoholic president with single-digit approval ratings. But still, with all the bending and gyrating this Congress has been doing, it’s a huge relief that, for one fleeting moment, they actually stood up and said “No!”

Savor the moment. There’s no doubt, our petulant child king will be bringing this subject back for another vote, and another vote, again and again and again until he gets his way. You can’t say “No” to a scion of the Bush Crime Family. It’s just not done.

I forget where I read this, but somebody was making an excellent point: there’s something huge going on behind the scenes that’s making these Conservatards keep pushing and pushing and pushing and grandstanding and pleading and shouting for retroactive telecom immunity. Our bribery system doesn’t usually work like this. Generally, a congressperson gets a bribe from a certain industry, and he/she is instructed to vote accordingly. And that’s all.

Getting bribed isn’t supposed to require months and months of pleading and threatening and foaming at the mouth every time a TV camera appears. WTF is going on here? Probably a lot more than we’ll ever know.

This other story is sort of along those same lines — government secrecy, things we’re not supposed to know, etc. The Pentagon has completed a study which shows there was no connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Uh, that was one of our main reasons for invading Iraq five years ago (along with those non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction). For a full year before the invasion we heard nothing but “Saddam al Qaeda Hussein bin Laden 9/11 Iraq Saddam bin Laden Iraq al Qaeda…”

And now that there’s a Pentagon report showing that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the Reichstag Fire September 11th attacks, we the lowly peons — whose tax dollars paid for this invasion — are not entitled to know about it. The Pentagon has been instructed not to release this report, and the report is not available online.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Attending a Wingtard Convention: Inside the Belly of the Beast

Monday, March 3rd, 2008

You’ve gotta check out this article. It’s long, but it’s an excellent read: appalling, hilarious, infuriating, absurd…

The author, Leonard Pierce, infiltrated the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC). He got in by posing as a lobbyist for the American Milk Solids Council. We know that two percent of America has gotten rich beyond belief in the past 7 years, and that 19% still think George W. Bush is doing a heckuva job.

Knowing those statistics is one thing, but just imagine being surrounded by thousands of these people. As Pierce describes it, “Here’s a description of Hell: a huge room full of all the people you hate most, and they’re all having a wonderful time.”

There’s a speech by Dick Cheney (of course). During his speech, the crowd starts cheering and yelling “Four More Years!” Cheney gives the usual soundbites about 9/11, telecom immunity and the wonders of torture. But the most telling thing about Cheney’s speech was the observation that: “His defense of torture gets a standing ovation, but his praising of our fighting men in uniform does not. It takes a man to fight, but it takes a train to waterboard.”

Next comes Mitt Romney’s famous speech where he says he entered the race because he loves his country and now he’s leaving (the race, not the country) for the same reason.

And there has to be a speech by Dumbya. Before Boozo the Clown even begins his speech, the crowd starts chanting “Four More Years!”

Bush’s speech itself had the predictable Bushisms: “Dick Cheney is the greatest vice president in the history of the United States.” The Bush Administration “didn’t seek the approval of editorialists…and we darned sure didn’t seek permission from groups like Code Pink and MoveOn before taking action.”

But check out Pierce’s description of Bush:

“In person, he looks a little haggard and tired: no legacy to speak of, no friends overseas (whither Pooty-Poot? a nation turns its starving eyes to you), and another boatload of corpses to go and frown at later today. He won’t last as long as his old man once he’s out of office: With no one to stand in the way of, with no one to infuriate, with no press hanging over his shoulder for him to mutter ‘fuck off’ at, he’ll wither away and disappear, just another burnout boomer with prostate cancer and no hobbies.”

The World Has Changed Forever

Thursday, February 14th, 2008

On September 12, 2001, George Bush stood atop a pile of rubble in New York and announced the world had changed forever. For the most part, it’s changed in ways few foresaw and without many rational, presumptive changes ever quite taking root, but it has changed, just as he promised.

For most of us, the biggest change has been in how little Dear LeaderTM cares for the individual freedoms he swore to defend and protect. For others - most notably families that lost someone that day - the world changed in a more fundamental and visceral way. Now, these seemingly different types of loss have converged.

El Jefe and the congress are once again at loggerheads over FISA laws. Since Day 1, the flaccid republican and democratic congresses have repeatedly given in to the President’s whims and then some. Congress has proposed a measly 15 day delay in considering a FISA renewal, but the Defender of His FateTM has threatened a veto. And as usually happens when he doesn’t get his way, he launched another fear bomb to justify it, “Terrorists are planning new attacks on our country … that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.” Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The Prez Who Cried Wolf
This terrorist threat is identical to dozens of other admonitions. Under that blanket excuse, he’s rolled back just about every civil liberty we once enjoyed, while the final word has never been validated by the courts. He admits he’s spied on US citizens in an apparent contravention of the Constitution. However, instead of an apology he simply demands more power, like Congress giving telecom companies protection from prosecution if they broke the law (which they already have).

His justification?

“If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate. They won’t help us. They won’t help protect America.

Loyalty, At a Price
In other words, we must pay multinational phone companies to retain their loyalty, rather than being the upstanding, selfless citizens we expect ourselves to be. That sounds a lot like buying off an Afghan warlord to be our BFF (and likely with similar results). It’s the type of behavior we’ve come to expect from the administration and is directly linked to the dubious premise that prisoners can be held without trial and without adequate legal representation. That’s hardly a fairness exemplar for “emerging democracies” like Iraq.

As some of the Guantanamo “disappeared” start preparing for trial, it’s obvious that “trials” in Bushspeak mean something very different than what most of us expect under the law. In Dubya’s steely legal mind, “trial” means take away anything good for the defendant and allow the prosecution to do anything they damn well please. This seems curious behavior for an administration that claims to have mountains of evidence condemning the detainees, yet can’t allow the defense to see any of it, even under strict secrecy provisions. It suggests the World’s Sole Remaining SuperpowerTM” might have some intelligence that doesn’t stand up in a legitimate court of law - which brings us to the families victimized by September 11.



Thursday, February 14th, 2008

I have written before that in general conservatives operate on fear while liberals operate out of necessity.

Let me briefly review this idea. In general conservatives are the successful wealthy business people who fear losing what they have - money. Or, conservatives are the morally upright religious zealots who fear that society could go down the toilet at any moment. These two groups represent the majority of conservatives. Progressives however, feel that the world has already caved in all around them. Progress is anything that can help them dig out of this mess. Progressives are willing to try almost anything to fix the problems in society, while conservatives fear that anything new will lead to the downfall of everything they have come to love.

Since the people who are happy with the way things currently are is usually a smaller number than those who believe that they are up to their necks in shit conservatives needed to craft a way to convince those in need to vote to change things to the way they have been. The idea that change back to the “old ways” was a progressive change was championed by the Reagan revolution. Fear and progressive change have been the guiding principles of American politics for a long time.

Well, it actually turns out that the majority of people actually reside somewhere in the middle. These moderates fear change that is too rapid, but they want some change to help them out of the doldrums. For these people “fear” and “change” are words that can move them to support a candidate. Reagan used “change” to move these people to his side. George W Bush used “fear” to keep them there in 2004.

The truth of the matter is that we should worry a bit about change. But, we should also recognize that change can happen for the better.

It is easy for people to become fearful of terrorism. Obviously seeing 3000 people killed in one day in an orchestrated terrorist effort is scary. I don’t need to say this, but we all know that death is a bad thing. But, death does not only come from terrorist attacks. Death comes in many preventable ways. And, progress happens when we can reduce unnecessary death no matter where it comes from.

But, how can we know which efforts to defeat unnecessary death should be taken on, and which efforts should not? We have limited resources and we can only do so much. This is known as risk. We can calculate risk by what we observe. For example, we can count the number of people killed by terrorist attacks and divide by the number of years that we examine. We can quickly see that even before the security measures taken on by the government we have had relatively few people die in terrorist attacks per year. We can compare this to automobile accidents and we quickly realize that driving our cars is much riskier than going back to our old level of security before 9/11/2001.

But, fear rules and conservatives are controlled by their fear. Our conservative government has told us to be afraid and to do whatever we can no matter what the cost in order to protect ourselves from terrorism. We have spent billions of dollars in Iraq fighting a war out of the fear that terrorist will attack us again. We have spent billions of dollars trying to prevent terrorist attacks that rarely happen. We could calculate how many lives have been saved by counting the number of deaths due to terrorism occurring in the seven years leading up to 9/11 and compare that to the number of lives lost in the prevention of terrorism since 9/11. We can include the amount of money spent and we will quickly come to the realization that we have lost more lives and spent more money based on irrational fear than before 9/11. The risk of terrorism was small and it is still small. We have lost more lives. It is almost as if we are paying terrorists to kill our soldiers. If we used a balance sheet that would be the conclusion.

But, the sad and frustrating part of this wasted effort is that the money could have gone to save lives instead. One example is our health care system. It turns out that roughly 18,000 people die each year because of lack of health care. That is equivalent to six 9/11s per year. Many of these people could have been saved if they had the health care that a civilized country like the United States has available to every citizen. With preventative care and regular checkups many lives could be saved or enhanced. The billions of dollars that we are wasting in Iraq to bring that country up to the twenty-first century could have been used to bring our poor and needy up to this century instead.

The foes of open borders continue to complain that immigrants too easily have access to services provided by our country. However, we freely give this same aid to Iraqis in an effort to appease them so that they will not join the insurgents. This may be working, but if we weren’t their in the first place it wouldn’t have even been an issue. And, if we had assessed to risks in a proper way we would never have gone into Iraq anyway.

Fear can be tempered by considering the risk involved. Fear of driving to and from work is almost zero for most commuters. The risk of this drive is far greater than to probability of being attacked by a terrorist. Roads could be made safer, but fear has persuaded the hand of government to spend more money on the terrorist “threat” and less on our roads.

The biggest problem that we face is not terrorism, or roads, or even health care. The biggest problem that we face is the education of our children. It turns out that we could make very good decisions based on the calculation of risk. However, our education system has cheated so many people in our society from having a useful education that politicians, if they actually can think, are able to persuade the public to fear risks that are as tiny as the threat of another terrorist attack. If we don’t educate our society to think, we will surely become a society where the wealthy and well-to-do minority will be able to control the rest of us through our ignorance. The erosion of our education system will ensure that any progress that we have made over the last 50-some years will erode as well.


Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit


Witch Trials

Monday, February 11th, 2008

Many years ago the Catholic Church began to worry about evil. At the time the Catholic Church reasoned that Satan was an angel created by God. Satan had originally been called Lucifer, and he was a favorite of God’s many angels. One interesting thing was that the Catholic Church never questioned the idea that God might actually play favorites and actually have a favorite angel. The story tells us that Lucifer turned his back on God because of his personal pride and fought a war against the angels that chose to stick with God. In the end Lucifer was banished from Heaven.

Well, Lucifer was not happy being banished from Heaven so he decided that he would tempt God’s latest creation - man. Tempting man in the form of Eve was literally “child’s play.” And, God was upset with Lucifer’s triumph in the mortal realm. So, God told Lucifer that he could no longer influence man directly. This was somehow meant to reassure us that we didn’t need to fear Lucifer around every corner tempting us.

The Catholic Church, however, had a problem. They observed the fact that there was certainly evil in the world. And, they knew that Satan had been banned from directly tempting man, from this story. So, how was Lucifer tempting evil in this world? They finally realized that man was being tempted by witches. Witches were human beings that could get around God’s ban on Lucifer’s dealing in the mortal realm. Witches certainly must be tempting man as a proxy for Satan. And, the obvious conclusion is to put the witches to death and secure a world free from evil.

Suddenly this story seems very familiar to me. If it doesn’t sound familiar to you then I’ll offer a little more.

The Catholic Church became so worried about how the witches were operating in the mortal realm that they set out to round up the witches. They looked for people that appeared suspicious. They might be people that didn’t act like a “normal” person. They arrested those who were suspicious and took them to a detention center.

Obviously a witch was evil by the very definition. And an evil one would certainly attempt to cover up their affairs by lying. And therefore anyone who would deny that they were a witch would certainly fall into the category of what a typical witch might do. However, with a massive amount of pain a witch might finally be forced to admit that they were a witch in a moment of weakness. And once an inquisitor would have a confession they could put the witch to death and purify the world. Such a noble goal - Don’t you think?

The premise here is pretty straightforward. Good will triumph over evil! Those hunting witch were certainly good. And, witch by definition are those who spread evil and therefore must be evil. How could any problem arise out of such a black and white situation? Good purifies the world by eliminating evil.

There are a couple of things that the Catholic Church never considered. The first and most terrifying thought is that we are all evil. We have all committed evil and we are all capable of committing more evil. In fact, the very nature of the idea that killing off evil people would purify the world is an evil idea. Murder is an evil act in itself, and any one who believes that they are worthy to carry out the act is suffering from the addition evil of pride. Pride of course was the same evil that brought down Lucifer himself.

The thought that purifying the world of evil is worth the lives of the innocents that might be caught up in this action is an additional evil that plagues the very proposal. But, pride overwhelms the people who have this idea repeatedly throughout history. Genocide is another fruit of this horrible mindset. People who are different are accused of being evil and torture is used to prove the validity of the claim. If a small amount of pain won’t bring the confession, then more pain will surely provide it. The cycle can only be stopped if the pride in knowing the truth can be broken. And, the truth is that this rarely happens. The Holocaust of six million Jews, The Spanish Inquisition, Rwanda and even the torture of suspected 9/11 terrorists are all examples of pride gone wrong. And today, February 11, 2008 our government announced that there will be still more witch trials. Pride has no limit - especially in this administration.


Don’t forget what Stephen Colbert said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit


Super Bowl Sunday 2008

Sunday, February 3rd, 2008

All Right!!! Was Super Bowl XLII one kickass game or what?!? The New York Giants came from behind to upset the New England Patriots in the last 35 seconds of the game. The Patriots got their asses handed to them, 17 to 14. You Go Giants!

Tom Brady played a hell of a game but he was sacked five times; pretty shocking for a record-setting quarterback. Eli Manning is now out from under his brother Peyton’s shadow — excellent work! And that incredible leaping catch by David Tyree was just too much.

Jordin Sparks opened with the National Anthem — a nice arrangement with some unusual chords that livened up a traditionally dull tune. And Tom Petty rocked the house during halftime.

OK, if you’ve read this far (and clicked on the links) you’ve figured it out — you’ve been had. You fell for the ol’ Bait and Switch. Gotcha! But you’re also a little bit more aware and informed now, right?

Bush Pre-emptive State of the Union

Monday, January 28th, 2008

Precedent Bush (misspelled on purpose) is going to the Congress with his State of the Union speech to tell us (Sheep) everything is okey dokey tonight and that we the people should follow the course he has lead us on as a nation. Some say that you can judge a political speech by the number of times a person blinks while giving it. More blinks is bad, less is good.

All of the crisis’s facing our nation we can beat as a people, provided he gets out of office in less than a year. I don’t think its even necessary that he fill out a change of address card with the post office simply because nobody is going to care where he ends up as long as it is not in our nations capitol. He is going to go on in his speech about issues that he and Darth Cheney can coast on out of office and leave the clean up for the next Oval Office occupant. Issues that he now cares about but worked against when he had a Republican Congress.

One of the issues that I look forward to him speaking on is Middle East peace. Bush and Middle East peace is definitely an oxymoron if ever I heard of one. This from a guy that has probably ingrained hatred of all American’s for generations to come from the people that actually live in any country in the Middle East. When he speaks of being in the region for one hundred years he isn’t kidding. Just as long as it is your children serving in our military and dying for his bravado. How can he speak of peace when he has our military troops stationed all over the area but concentrated in Iraq based on wag the dog theories? We could have hired one of those 1-900 psychic’s and had better intelligence to invade Iraq and force a policy of “Nation Building” on the Iraqi people.

When you get right down to it the state of the union is not sound and has not been for seven years. From the minute the planes crashed into the World Trade Center buildings our nation has been in chaos and in that new found chaos the ability to sell fear became an immediate commodity to Bush and company. What should terrify you most is that he actually believes his own lies and misdirection. While he and the Congress of both political parties diverted the people into a corner of fear and patriotism they left the business of America at home behind. With us or against us became a catch phrase of strength and yet it shadowed and covered our own ignorance of what has been going on unchecked here at home. That same mantra is used as a weapon by people of ordinary means to pit Republican against Democrat, Liberal against Conservative. Hundreds of billions of dollars have gone out of this nation to prop up an Iraq government that behind the scenes wants our troops off of their sovereign soil. Meanwhile our bridges are collapsing, our schools are falling behind, our healthcare system is broken, our homes are being lost in record numbers and our borders are wide open if you want to come in. Just don’t try getting out if you are an actual legal American citizen.

Then again Bush has the remaining Republican candidates for his job convinced that his mission is right and we should stay the course. McCain has bought into it so much that he too will keep our troops in Iraq for one hundred years if need be. McCain can use the argument that we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea decades after the conflicts and war and that is true but diplomacy made that possible. There was not one iota of “My way or the highway” in the diplomacy that made that possible.

Our State of the Union is not a pep rally by any means this year. It is going to be more of who Precedent Bush wishes he could have been. What he should have done. With this being his last speech to the entire Congress I expect compassion for the poor and the sick, for the children and education, support for our military is a given. Of course he will end his speech with God bless America but in reality he is only wishing that God actually bless the top two percent of income earners. He’s compassionate that way but Joe and Joanne Six-pack do not donate huge dollars to a Presidential Library do they?

One thing I am sure of at this time in the state of our union is that Precedent Bush has destroyed the Republican Party and any candidate dreaming of the White House. God works in wonderful ways like that. Reap what you sow and stuff like that. Thank you God and President Bush!


Feel free to link to or borrow this post…

Originally posted at Papamoka Straight Talk

Is John Durham the man for the job?

Friday, January 4th, 2008

His appointment is central to the question of whether or not there can be a decent Justice Dept investigation into the destruction of the Torture Tapes. The fact that Bush tried to talk Mukasey out of the investigation shows there won’t be any cooperation by the White House into the investigaton of the destruction of the tapes. Several pundits, both legal and otherwise, weigh in on this subject below.

Dahlia Lithwick for Slate gives us her pov:

And Durham appears to be more than merely apolitical. He appears to be zealous in his ability to smoke out wrongdoing, even when it’s the alleged good guys who have been doing the wrong. Durham’s career-making prosecution was, after all, an appointment by Janet Reno to go after criminal conduct by the FBI and other government agents who had apparently been in bed with mobsters in Boston for decades. In this fascinating 2001 profile in the Hartford Courant, Durham is described as nonpartisan, incorruptible, and totally devoted to the integrity of the justice system. He was able to go after corrupt federal agents precisely because his belief in the system transcended his devotion to the government.

To be sure, Durham faces challenges in his CIA investigations that will make the Boston prosecution look like a day at the ballpark. Both the CIA and the White House will throw as much sand in his eyes as they possibly can, and if Harriet Miers can be prevented from testifying about fired U.S. attorneys, you can bet the White House won’t make it easy for Durham to investigate allegations of lies and obstruction. The fact that Durham ultimately answers to Mukasey is hardly comforting, either.


But maybe it’s enough just to note a slight trend: When it comes to saying no to the president, Mukasey is exponentially braver than Gonzales was, and when it comes to exposing government misconduct, Durham may well prove braver than Mukasey. At a press conference about the Boston prosecution, Durham was asked by a reporter whether the Department of Justice truly had “the stomach to pursue this investigation to its conclusion,” even if that meant further eroding the FBI’s credibility. Durham’s response at the time: “The government absolutely has the stomach.” Here’s hoping his stomach can stay that strong.

Glen Greenwald @ Salon has a long-winded post about the whole internal investigation impartiality angle. His take on Durham is that he is an upstanding guy. WaPo points out his shortcomings:

But Durham has had little experience with national security issues and with cases involving executive authority that appear to be less than black-and-white. His probe may require calling lawyers and aides to Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the CIA before a grand jury to testify about their knowledge of the tapes’ destruction.

At TPM, David Kurtz has his say: All indications are that Durham, a registered Republican, is a competent, independent, tough-minded prosecutor, precisely the type of lawyer you would want leading such a high-profile, complex, politically charged investigation.

All I can figure out is this, and many pundits agree…the DOJ wants control over this investigation, unlike PlameGate and their appointment of Fitzy as a Special Prosecutor. Control is a hallmark of the Bush administration..and that bothers me greatly. Mukasey hasn’t endeared himself to me one iota and that doesn’t bode well for this investigation imho. Can you say Whitewash? I can, but I hope I am wrong. Durham can be a standup guy in his own right..but if his boss Mukasey and/or BushCo don’t want him to find the truth..he won’t.

Tags: Mukasey, Justice Department, John Durham, Torture Tapes