The XX Factor: What women really think.

Soufan Speaks

In the debate raging over whether the Bush administration's torture practices produced valuable intelligence, the voice I'm most interested in, so far, is that of Ali Soufan. He is the FBI detective whom the CIA may have blocked from stopping 9/11, one of the few Arab speakers in the bureau, the guy who was getting Salim Hamdan to talk, according to Jonathan Mahler's book, The Challenge—and then had to relinquish Hamdan in frustration when the government decided to prosecute him. He's an intelligence officer who was close to but not part of the CIA interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Today Soufan tells us, in a New York Times op-ed, that torturing Abu Zubaydah got us nada. Soufan writes:

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions—all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

And then he takes apart specific claims for intelligence gains, much as Tim did about the supposed busting of the Liberty Tower plot in L.A., by showing that the timelines don't work. The key information was gleaned by traditional methods before the torture began, or at least before it was approved in the DoJ memos. What now, Marc Thiessen and Dick Cheney? Ball in your court.

I Feel For Cheney

I never thought I'd write this sentence, but poor Dick Cheney. Last week's disclosure of the torture memos he fought to keep secret has forced him into the extremely uncharacteristic position of calling for more disclosure:

...they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified. I formally asked that they be declassified now.

Ah, secrets—if only Cheney had thought of declassifying these reports when he had the power to do it himself! It almost makes you wish he was vice president again, doesn't it?

Meanwhile, Jane Mayer reports at the New Yorker that the Senate Armed Services Committee's unredacted report (pdf), released Tuesday by Sen. Levin, shows that the CIA used torture before the first Bybee memo granted approval on August 1, 2002. Like I said the other day, I don't think prosecuting CIA agents for what they did in the months after 9/11 is the best way to go. But this kind of evidence of law-breaking could be hard for Eric Holder to ignore.

Then there's this from Dafna Linzer at ProPublica: dozens of former CIA prisoners have gone missing.
 

Outgoing Cheney Cheer

When I was a child, I was a huge fan of a series of books that featured small, soft, furry white creatures known as Moomins. Of course, not everything in Moominvalley was as nice as the Moomins. There was another character who came along every once in a while, the Groke. Wherever she went, she left behind a trail of frozen ground that killed all living things. Dick Cheney has always remind me of the Groke.

In a new interview with Politico, Cheney pronounces the United States should expect a catastrophic nuclear or biological terrorist attack in the near future—and the Obama administration increases the likelihood it will happen. Cheney's penchant for practices like water-boarding, he claims, kept more 9/11-style attacks at bay during the Bush administration.

[Cheney] asserted that President Obama will either backtrack on his stated intentions to end those policies or put the country at risk in ways more severe than most Americans—and, he charged, many members of Obama’s own team—understand ...

He expressed confidence that files will someday be publicly accessible offering specific evidence that waterboarding and other policies he promoted—over sharp internal dissent from colleagues and harsh public criticism—were directly responsible for averting new Sept. 11-style attacks. ...

“If it hadn’t been for what we did—with respect to the terrorist surveillance program, or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, and so forth—then we would have been attacked again," he said.

Sarah and Dick

With today's dust-up over blocking press access to her meet-and-greet with foreign dignitaries, Sarah Palin reminds me ever-more of the vice president she is absolutely not meant to invoke ... Dick Cheney. She assumes the press has base motives and scorns its watchdog function--today's lesson was that print reporters and TV producers can't even be trusted with the handshake pleasantries. As governor, she prizes secrecy and loyalty among her aides. She hides her e-mails in a private Yahoo account. Palin's rationale may be different than Cheney's, especially when it comes to her treatment of the press. She has skated on thin talking points when trying to discuss foreign and domestic policy in the few interviews she's granted since McCain chose her, and that's not Cheney's problem. But if she makes it to the office of the vice president, might she prefer that it remain a closed box? It looks like the answer is yes. Even if that's not the fresh look the McCain campaign wants to promise. 

A Bush-Woman as Obama's Running Mate?

Now this is interesting: Obama might pick a Republican woman as his running mate. It's hard to know how seriously to take a trial balloon like this; some of the people rounding out these lists are obviously there for courtesy's sake, or in the hope of attracting some of his or her supporters on the cheap. (And Sen. McCain, sir, if you are really considering that Joe Lieberman fella, I know someone you should speak to without delay—a guy you used to work with, actually. Joementum notwithstanding, I'm not sure he will hold up under pressure, is what I'm saying.)

If Obama did choose former Bush ag secretary Ann Veneman, who served during W's first term before going to work for UNICEF, it would definitely send a great message about bringing Americans together. Maybe it would close the sale with those Hillary fans who are still playing footsie with McCain, and draw in some independents, too. But according to Politico, Veneman "was close to food and agriculture industries'' and "clashed with farm-state Democrats and environmentalists,'' and I'm not sure how many people would view the selection of an anti-enviro, pro-industry Bush retread as the kind of "fundamental change'' he is promising. Wonder if Caroline Kennedy is considering putting herself in contention, as Dick Cheney did when he ran Bush's vet-the-veep team?

Thoughts From a Hillary Supporter Who Might Go for McCain

Just received this e-mail from a friend, a Washington lawyer who is a lifelong Democrat and a generous donor to the party. She supported Hillary in the primary and is undecided about what she'll do in November:

I just read your XX column, and I wanted to share a couple thoughts. Even though Hillary characterized her campaign as a big feminist movement in her exit speech, I'm not sure all her supporters saw it that way. I also think the risk of defection to McCain is very real, and not limited to uneducated, working class types. Just in my office, I know 6-7 women, all lifelong Democrats from VA who are now planning to vote for McCain. They are all highly educated people who follow politics closely, and a couple even worked for Dems on the Hill at one point or another. The decision to defect to McCain has nothing to do with Hillary as a woman or Obama's personality. They like Obama enough as a person, but they think he's an empty suit—rhetoric with little record behind it. Even if they agree more with Obama's positions, it seems risky to put such an inexperienced person in the White House—especially after what happened last time. I think the media misses this. It is not all about feminism. 

Having said that, I know there is a bit of truth to the feminist argument. I also know a strong, pro-choice Democrat from Maryland—someone who regularly hosts NARAL dinners—who is defecting to McCain, even though she understands his views on abortion. I doubt if this woman ever even voted for any Republican before in her whole life, and she just contributed to McCain's campaign. Truly amazing! I think Obama will have a real problem in the Electoral College if he does not find a way to reach out to the people who voted against him—for whatever reason. For now, I'm undecided and I'm planning on staying that way for a while. My big issue is the economy and both Obama and McCain are weak in that area, so it probably doesn't matter much.

I answered her that the experience issue doesn't resonate with me, especially as Cheney and Rummy had been around since the last ice age, and where did that get us? Hillary has been in the Senate only four years longer than Obama: big whoop. If you count his time in the Illinois Senate, he's actually had more experience as an elected official. (And while of course her experience as first lady counts for something, would we give Laura Bush full credit for those years—even though, as she belatedly tells us, she, too, had a big policy role all along?) The whole experience question just feels like a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing. Because when someone says they would slit their wrist before voting for Obama, that is NOT about Clinton having been in the Senate longer.

And here's my friend's response, which shows that hurt feelings cut both ways during the primary season, and opened some wounds that Obama must now work hard to help heal:

I think her years as first lady count for something, but regardless, she has a much better command of the issues. He was a back-bencher in the state senate, not committee chair, etc. ... He improved during the debates, but even at the end he was flubbing basic tax, economic, and foreign policy issues. Maybe I've been dealing with those issues for too long, but honestly, he is constantly struggling for answers and contradicting himself. I think it would help if he gave voters a sense of who he would appoint to his Cabinet. If he is just going to be an inspirational figurehead, I'd like to know who's going to be advising him. ... Bottom line—the divisions here are very, very deep for all sorts of reasons, and Obama has got to find a way to reach out. Many people are hurt by all the name calling in the campaign. [My son] was repeatedly called a racist at school for supporting Hillary, and I know they have had to address similar issues in [a private school in Washington]. I've heard that some African-American women who supported Hillary were subjected to threats and taunting. Of course, it's not Obama making those comments, and people need to realize that there is a downside to all that young voter passion, but it does not make you want to switch to the other team. Five years ago, I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat because I've always liked him. He's definitely sold out to the right in those five years, though, and that's what gives me pause.'

That she's even thinking McCain should give her party pause, too.