George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent'

By GottaLaff

Tell me if you've heard this one before. Oh wait, you have, because it's exactly what I've been writing about for months regarding Lt. Col. Barry Wingard's client Fayiz al-Kandari.

The difference is, now Colin Powell's former aide Larry Wilkerson is saying it, right out loud:

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times.

The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.

Of course, the Obama administration would rather not look back, only forward. I have a feeling that may change one day soon, the way evidence has been mounting against BushCo. If they ignore this information, then we have a real problem.

Wilkerson's recounting of what happened is nearly identical to Fayiz's story:

[T]he majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

Bingo.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and even Bush himself were in on it, per Wilkerson. Re: Cheney...

“He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”

He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

Just. Go. Read.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

H/t: Tosfm

Reaction to President Obama's Speech on Afghanistan

By GottaLaff

Taegan's not feeling all that positive about President Obama's speech, thinks we'll be there for years, and doesn't think the president changed any minds. He also gives us some input from a few others:

Andrew Sullivan: "I confess I do not feel those highest hopes. I do not share his confidence in American military and civilian power to turn the roiling region of Afghanistan and Pakistan into something less threatening. I see no reason after the last eight years to see how this can happen, even with these new resources. But if you rule out withdrawal right away, then this seems to me to be about the smartest strategy ahead. But I see absolutely no reason to believe that it will mean withdrawal of any significant amount in Obama's first term."

David Kurtz: "I know many progressives are disenchanted with this decision, but I'm struck again by how Obama is crafting a new progressive narrative for foreign policy and national security. Not just reality-based, though it is that. But an affirmative, positive rationale. Not a reaction to the conservative foreign policy orthodoxy, though it certainly acknowledges it."

John Aravosis: "I think Obama did a good job, especially for a Democrat, on a major military speech. Democrats enter this territory with certain disadvantages. That's why, I think, that Obama did a great job of using the pomp and circumstance of office, as Bush and other Republicans always do, to lend an air of dignity to the evening.

As Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell) said on Countdown tonight, "He came up with the least worst" option. This, to me, seems to be the consensus.

Steve Clemons (also on Countdown) opined that "the Pashtun needs to be more of Obama's target".

The Rachel Maddow Show- Lawrence Wilkerson destroys Dick Cheney

I love the smell of schadenfreude in the morning. Keep talking Dick. This is an interesting read in the same vein.

Tripp Bush?

By GottaLaff

In what respect, Larry?

In an interview with Vanity Fair for its upcoming issue on the Bush White House, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, ripped President Bush, saying that after the 2000 election, Bush’s knowledge of foreign affairs was as poor as that of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R):

We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national- security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire.

He may have had Grandma Also's expertise, but he has Tripp's diction and communication skills.