It Isn't "Torture." It's "Lively Conversation."

The former rulers of the junta, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo, and all those who promoted the torture of prisoners of war, apparently for their own sadistic twisted pleasure, have demanded that the media and all the supporters of that junta never, ever, no matter what, under any circumstances use the word "T-O-R-T-U-R-E."

Instead, they issued a directive to the public and to Rupert Murdoch's whorehouse at Fox and all the newspapers he owns, and to the drug addict on the radio, and to all the deranged and despicable people in Congress (like that crazy-lady Bachman), that whenever they are discussing the "issue," they must call it: "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

(Here's an example of what the media calls "enhanced interrogation techniques": kicking and beating somebody over the head so they bleed profusely, then throwing them in a cell to wait for the next round of "enhanced interrogation techniques.")

The sad truth is that most of the media is still obeying the criminals and monsters from the Bush regime. Even after we finally threw them out of office, they still control most of the media. And most of the media on most of the channels and in most of the newspapers are talking about "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." Instead of calling it what it is, which is torture. With a capital T.

(What about electrocuting people. Is that okay? Is it "interrogation?" Or is it Torture?)

Of course we don't really know what all these pervs directed be done. How many of the reports were destroyed. The theory they are promoting is that there was a ticking bomb, the people they tortured had critical evidence, and the only way to get the information was by torturing them.

Dick Cheney, a bully and a coward, who has hidden behind women his entire life to make sure his bloodless lazy corrupt self was never in the tiniest bit of danger or discomfort, the man who hid behind his wife's skirts to get five deferments (Five-Deferment Dick) to avoid being drafted into the military and possibly be sent to Vietnam, the man who just this week sent his little girl out in public to get smeared with association with torture while he hides at home, this man claimed he wanted to go to the "Dark Side." Which, in his entire cowardly life, consists of going to bed without a nightlight

That's the courageous Mr. Cheney who now claims he is some superhero, out to protect the public. He hid behind Scooter Libby and let his buddy go to prison for his role in "outing" a CIA Agent and hid under his desk when they came to ask him questions about his involvement. He let this little England girl from West Virginia, someone who probably never got a break in her life, go to prison while he sat protected in D.C. and kept his mouth shut.

If Cheney is so insistent that torture was the right thing to do, why doesn't he stand up for once in his cowardly life and take responsibility for what he did? Instead of hiding behind all these women, too scared to go out in public, too cowardly to ever take responsibility for his own wrongful conduct. If he's a superhero, I'd call him Dick the Coward.

Did they authorize rape? Rape is a very typical weapon of war. Or rape of the families, maybe the children of the prisoners? Did they authorize that? And if not, why not? After all, the bomb was ticking, right?

Here's an interesting question that the pathetic media isn't discussing: how many people did they kill? No mention of that, but people did die -- from being beaten, kicked, brutalized. So what do we do about that? Do they get a pass on murder because somebody thought they heard a "ticking" sound?

Should we call this the Captain Hook Defense? "I heard something ticking -- I thought it was a bomb. So maybe it was an alarm clock, my mistake."

(Why does he have the gloves on? Because he doesn't want to get blood on his hands when he beats these bound or unconscious prisoners?)

I'm tired of hearing those media newsreaders mouth the phrase "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." After all, most of the news casters, "anchors," didn't even graduate from Beauty School -- they dropped out once they got to the Hair Coloring class because they couldn't distinguish Sienna from Auburn.

So I've got an idea. We can't call it torture. We can never speak the truth in this country. That is the disgusting fact. No matter what, never speak the truth.

(What about piling on someone, suffocating them, so they can't breathe. Is that okay? What if they die? Still okay?)

Why don't we just call it "Lively Conversation."

On one side, you have a large crowd of jack-booted thugs with weapons, metal bars, guns, knives, heavy boots, well-fed, covered with tattoos of swastikas and White Power symbols, screaming racial hatred and murderous rage, often brainwashed by right-wing fascist Chaplains who have taken over the military and instruct the enlistees that their job is to kill Muslims for God, often directly recruited by our military from the American Nazi and other White Power criminal groups -- and on the other hand you have a usually sick, weak, confused, vulnerable, helpless, tied, injured, bleeding, cuffed, chained and shackled prisoner-of-war who has been kidnapped, taken to some other country, starved, terrorized, stuck in a dungeon or cage, and is now being brutalized and in some cases will be murdered.

I think "Lively Conversation" is as accurate as "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."

What about Congress? I heard Harry Reid standing up for Jay Bybee, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal Torturer in Chief. Bybee wrote one of the Torture Memos providing a legal excuse and rationalization for the Bush Junta to use in going forward in torturing prisoners of war. Why would Reid stand up for this monster? Because they're both Mormons? Does that tie trump a commitment to the law? If so, Harry better step aside.

What about everyone else in Congress? This week we learned that Bush had wire-tapped Jane Harman, a California Representative. Remember how Congress was so eager to grant complete immunity for the illegal wiretap program? So the citizens would be legally blocked from ever being able to find out who was wiretapped. Why did Congress do that? One of the questions at the time was whether Bush had wiretapped every Democrat in Congress (and maybe the Governors of New York and Illinois, among others) to get secret information that he could use against them if, after he left office, the Democrats tried to prosecute him and his gang for war crimes. Was the Harman take-down this week just a "reminder" to the other Democrats that they'd better quash this torture issue? Or they'll release the dirt they've got on the corrupt politicians in Congress? Is that' what's going on?

(What about having a woman point a pretend gun at a bunch of naked men's penises. Is that okay? What exactly is the purpose? If she went to prison, why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney?)

Come on media. Come on you cowardly corrupt lazy Senators and Representatives. It's Torture. With a Capital T. And it isn't confined to waterboarding. It includes the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, all the barbarism done at the "Black Hole Sites" set up by the CIA in dungeons in nations that did the torturing for us. And what happened to the people stuck in the black holes? Were they murdered? We need a full accounting. We need truth and we need justice.

We need public hearings, we need all the truth to come out, we need criminal charges, prosecution, and imprisonment for all the leaders of the Bush junta who directed, authorized, ratified, consented to this torture of prisoners-of-war by the United States. The investigation must start with the people at the top including but not limited to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Jay Bybee, and John Yoo.

New York Times escalates the rhetoric and finally, today, goes out on a limb and refers to "harsh" interrogation techniques. Instead of just "enhanced" interrogation techniques. Bra-vo. With such courage from our newspaper of record, it is no wonder our democracy thrives and the citizens can sleep safely at night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/us/politics/25cong.html?_r=1&hpw

Today, Washington Post reports that the military agency which provided advice on "harsh interrogation techniques" described it as torture. But the Washington Post doesn't describe it as torture. They use the Cheney-dictated phrase: "enhanced interrogation techniques." I'm going to send them an e-mail suggesting that if they want to change things up every once in awhile, they could call it "Lively Conversation." I think Cheney would be okay with that phrase. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html?hpid=topnews

(Lively conversation between beaten, bleeding, chained, cuffed, near-dead prisoner of war, and the proud men and women of the United States Military).