Dan

Calabrese

Read Dan's bio and previous columns here

December 17, 2007

Just Say It, President Bush: ‘Yes, We Waterboard’

“Yes. We waterboard suspects during interrogations if we feel it is necessary to obtain crucial information to protect the American people. Yes, some regard this as torture. Maybe it is. I don’t really care. If this is what’s necessary to protect the American people, we will do it. If this upsets those who believe we should subject ourselves to rules that our enemies would never follow, those people will just have to be upset. If, at any time, we make a mistake and subject an innocent person to such treatment, I am willing to be held responsible for these mistakes – but when all information suggests we face a choice between harsh interrogation and possible harm to the American people, we will be as harsh as we need to be. And I will veto any legislation that attempts to tie the hands of our forces in the field by outlawing harsh forms of interrogation.”

Why won’t President Bush simply say this?

Democrats have oddly made the calculation that they can score political points by accusing the Bush administration of being too hard on terrorists. But even more oddly, the administration is helping them succeed at this strategy by being defensive about waterboarding.

Waterboarding simulates drowning by pouring water on the suspect’s face until it is difficult for the suspect to breathe. I wouldn’t want it to happen to me. If you ask me, it is torture.

But who cares?

This administration thumbed its nose at the United Nations and liberated Iraq without Security Council authorization. It refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because to do so would have put the U.S. economy at risk. It has continued operating the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay despite cries that it is upsetting the world.

The Bush crew has been more willing than any of its recent predecessors to go against the “will of the international community” to protect the interests of the United States. And that’s all to the good. So why are they so unwilling to acknowledge that they do what a majority of Americans would surely support – torturing terrorists when necessary to get crucial information?

There is no reason this should be controversial. But for all its willingness to stick to its guns and take the political heat if necessary, the Bush administration is oddly defensive about the stupidest things.

When Democrats accused the administration of outing a covert CIA agent, they should have simply responded that they were defending themselves against a critic by pointing out that he had no qualifications to make the charges he was leveling in the first place – as evidenced by the fact that he only got to go on his Niger trip because of nepotism at the hands of his CIA-employee wife. This is the truth.

When Democrats accused the administration of impropriety in firing eight U.S. attorneys, they should have simply responded that the president can fire any U.S. attorney any time he wants for any reason or for no reason at all, and that no matter who knew about it, sent an e-mail about it or took part in a meeting about it, it doesn’t matter. This is the truth.

And when Democrats accused the administration of torturing terror suspects, they should have said, “Damn right.”

This was the tact the administration took when Democrats tried to make hay out of warrantless wiretaps. This was a political loser for the Democrats because the American people understand why the government needs to wiretap calls in which terrorists may be plotting attacks. By unflinchingly sticking to its guns, the administration made the Democrats look like they are willing to risk American national security to score political points. Which they are.

So why be so defensive about waterboarding and other equally justified actions? One wonders if Bush’s political strategists are looking at his low approval ratings and concluding from them that the American people have gone soft on terrorism. Why else would they suddenly be so unwilling to turn these issues around and put the Democrats on the defensive – forcing them to explain why they are soft on terrorism?

Yes. We torture terrorists, not lightly and certainly not for fun, but when we need to. Any president unwilling to do so would be derelict in his duty to protect the American people.

Just say it. Everyone but the most radical leftist will understand and support this position.

Bush has been at his best when he has been strong, confident and, if necessary, defiant. It’s when he acts afraid to acknowledge perfectly justifiable actions that the American people wonder if he is going wobbly.

Bush has always expressed confidence that history will vindicate him. I think he’s right. But if he would stop acting so unnecessarily defensive, he might find that the present would vindicate him as well.

This is Column # DC135.  Request permission to publish here.