The article continues:

The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War” and written by Alfred D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.

Those orchestrated confessions led to allegations that the American prisoners had been “brainwashed,”

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin said:

“What makes this document doubly stunning is that these were techniques to get false confessions,” Mr. Levin said. “People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don’t need false intelligence.

Full article here…

This really is ironic: Neocons like Limbaugh, Hannity and Kristol, who are most vociferously opposed to communism — and especially Chinese communism — are also most vociferously supportive of our government’s use of torture techniques invented by Chinese communists! And they tell us the terrorists hate us for our freedom.

In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks. ~The New York Times

Of course, if Obama did reverse himself for a second time on the same issue, he would appear to be even more supine and susceptible to political pressure than he already does. It would be like his Jerusalem two-step (undivided, yet partitioned!) all over again, which could be used quite effectively to attack his judgement. Of all the recent reversals and maneuverings, the flip on FISA legislation is the most outrageous, because the policy he has now endorsed is one of the worst of the Bush administration, and it is the one that erases one of the few differences between him and McCain on matters of national security.

Full article here…

“Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”
— President Ronald Reagan

One… Conservatives believe that war is a “last option” that should only be initiated when there is a direct and imminent threat to the United States. Iran does not currently pose such a threat.

“In short, deliberate entry into war commonly brings on consequences disagreeable even to the seeming victors. Prudent statesmen long have known that armed conflict, for all involved, ought to be the last desperate resort, to be entered upon only when all means of diplomacy, conciliation, and compromise have been exhausted.” — Russell Kirk

“The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: the United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor.” — Ronald Reagan

Two… Conservatives believe that diplomacy is the first essential step in managing international crises. The United States has not been engaged in serious bilateral negotiations directly with Iran.

“To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.” — Winston Churchill

“A soundly conservative foreign policy in the age which is dawning should be neither ‘interventionist’ nor ‘isolationist’; it should be prudent. Its object should not be to secure the triumph everywhere of America’s name and manners, under the slogan of ‘democratic capitalism,’ but instead the preservation of the true national interest, and acceptance of the diversity of economic and political institutions throughout the world.” — Russell Kirk

Three… Conservatives believe in small government and individual liberties. War with Iran will inevitably lead to an increase in the size of federal bureaucracies, most particularly the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the intelligence services and will lead to calls for greater government intrusion in the lives of all Americans.

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy… Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. No nation could preserve its %eedom in the midst of continual warfare.” — James Madison

“In 1969, when I came out of prison as an ex#convict, I had more freedom under parolee supervision than there’s available to an average citizen in American right now…God almighty, what have we done to each other?” — Merle Haggard

Four… Conservatives believe that government should be fiscally responsible. An Iran war would be financed by borrowing even more money than we’ve already borrowed “primarily from China and Japan# to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, worsening an already untenable burden on future generations.

“Unless the Bush Administration abruptly reverses its fiscal and military course, I su”est, the Republican Party must lose its former good repute for %ugality, and become the party of profligate expenditure, ‘butter and guns.’ And public opinion would not long abide that. Nor would America’s world influence and America’s remaining prosperity.” — Russell Kirk

Five… Conservatives believe that the life of every American is precious. War with Iran would kill more citizen soldiers and sailors and would make the thousands of Americans serving in neighboring Iraq vulnerable.

“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of %ee men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” — Ronald Reagan

Six… Conservatives believe in a strong domestic economy, enabling every American to live a decent life. The direct costs of the war coupled with the energy shock from an attack on Iran would have a devastating e$ect on the cost of living of every American family.

“Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.” — Douglas MacArthur.

Seven… Conservatives believe that terrorism is a serious problem and the government must take steps to guarantee that there be no repeat of 9/11. Attacking Iran would unleash terrorism against America and its allies, including most likely new attacks inside the United States.

“Battling terrorism must go beyond discovering and disrupting it before it happens and deterring it with retaliation. We need to remove the motivation for it by extricating the United States from ethnic, religious, and historical quarrels that are not ours and which we cannot resolve with any finality.” — Pat Buchanan

Eight… Conservatives believe in a strong dollar as a pillar of the national economy. The dollar is currently at its weakest level ever. Another war in the Middle East would provoke a run on dollars and would weaken it further, perhaps fatally.

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no#win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” % Ron Paul

Nine… Conservatives believe that the United States is respected and well& liked around the world when it behaves fairly and peacefully towards all nations, as our first president George Washington recommended in his Farewell Address. Another pre-emptive war would increase the dislike and even hatred of Americans currently felt by people around the world. It would make many countries dangerous destinations for U.S. visitors and inhospitable to American business.

“We must find a President who will order a foreign policy of enlightened self#interest supported by a defense system of superior weapons strong enough to deter the most reckless a”ressor. Such a foreign policy will make it clear to all the nations of this world that we have no desire to expand our territory or to impose our type of government or our way of life on any other people.” — Barry Goldwater

Ten… Conservatives understand that foreign and defense policy should ultimately benefit the United States and its people. An attack on Iran would not solve outstanding differences between Washington, would not eliminate Tehran’s nuclear program, and would only impel Iranians to accelerate their quest for a nuclear weapon, turning a country that is an international pariah into a genuine threat.

“America does not need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” — John Quincy Adams.

“We occupy no countries and we have built no walls to lock our people in. Our commitment to self determination, freedom, and peace is the very soul of America. That commitment is as strong today as it ever was.” — James Madison

Unfortunately, things have gone radically off course during President Bush’s tenure. There is an urgent need to counter the idea now predominant within the American conservative movement that a traditional foreign and defense policy consists of unilateral pre&emptive/preventive war.

ACDA believes that the foreign and defense policies of the United States should be based on our nation’s founding principles. Such an approach should be determined by whether or not they are needed to defend the U.S. ! not on the need to defend other nation or by attempting to establish uniquely American&styled democracy in other countries.

While we are committed to maintaining and expanding strong economic and cultural ties to other nations, the use of U.S. military force should be reserved for the defense of the United States and only used as a last resort when all other diplomatic efforts have failed. The

American Conservative Defense Alliance advocates:

• Supporting a strong, cost-effective, and Constitutional national defense strategy the purpose of which is to secure the lives, liberty, and property of the American people.
• Creating, strengthening, and maintaining military forces capable of defeating any enemy that attacks the United States.
• Ensuring that America’s soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, coast guard, and reserve component forces are the best equipped, trained, and led military forces in the world.
• Promoting a foreign policy of strategic independence, thereby avoiding foreign conflicts unless there is a verifiable and imminent threat to the United States. If the U.S. does engage in military action, there must be clear standards for victory and exit. Absent exceptional circumstances, when a vital national interest is at stake, America should neither underwrite regimes nor engage in nation building.
• Providing to the world examples of how to maintain a free and prosperous society based on the rule of Constitutional law, individual liberty, and the rights of private property.

The American Conservative Defense Alliance seeks the financial support of individuals, corporations, and foundations who appreciate our mission and activities, and who will partner with ACDA in accomplishing our goal of international peace and prosperity inspired by American policies of trust, respect, and leadership among the nations of the world.

“ACDA is a new and activist voice in Washington bringing together conservatives and libertarians opposed to the big government conservatives and imperialist neocons who took over the Republican Party.” — Jon Basil Utley, Associate Publisher, American Conservative magazine

• • •

ACDA DIRECTORS… Michael D. Ostrolenk, Founder and President. A public policy consultant who works on health, education, privacy, foreign policy, and national security issues, Mr. Ostrolenk is the co&founder of the Liberty Coalition, focusing on protecting civil liberties and promoting national security. • Samah Norquist, Secretary. Ms. Norquist served as Public A$airs Specialist at the Bureau of Legislative and Public A$airs at USAID and Cultural A$airs Assistant at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan. She is currently a Washington D.C.&based public relations consultant. • Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., Francis Walsingham Fellow. A former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer, Mr. Giraldi is a columnist for American Conservative magazine. • Doug Bandow, J.D., Robert A. Taft Fellow. The Bastiat Scholar in Free Enterprise at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mr. Bandow served as a Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He writes a weekly column for the website AntiWar.Com. • Larry Madison, Military and Veterans Affairs Analyst. A member of the Guard and Reserve components of the Air Force and Army for more than 30 years, Mr. Madison is currently is legislative director for a national veterans service organization. • Peter B. Gemma, Treasurer. A columnist with Middle American News, Mr. Gemma has written for such publications as USA Today, the Washington Examiner, Human Events, and Military History magazine. His anthology, “Shots Fired: Sam Francis on America’s Culture War,” was published in 2006.

The American Conservative Defense Alliance, Inc.
1920 L Street, NW • Suite 200 • Washington D.C. 20036
301-717-0599 • http://acdalliance.org

The most interesting aspect of the latest Seymour Hersh warning that the Bush administration is gearing up for a fight in Iran (or over Iran) was this claim about a meeting Defence Secretary Robert Gates had with Democratic Senators:

“Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a pre-emptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, ‘We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.’ Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

“Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was ‘Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.’ (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)”

So Gates and the US top brass will veto a strike. If Gates threatened to resign he would win. Is he gutsier than Powell? That’s the question.

More…

President Bush has headlined a fund-raising event to help John McCain finance his campaign to succeed him, but most of the big-money backers who helped reelect Bush in 2004 haven’t pulled out their checkbooks for McCain - or asked their friends to chip in either.

Of the 548 leaders of Bush’s vaunted money-raising machine, about 43 percent have contributed to McCain, a Globe review of finance reports covering the period through May 31 shows. Even fewer of them solicited and bundled donations from others for McCain, as they did for Bush four years ago.

About 25 percent of the elite Bush money team gave to another Republican or, in several cases, to a Democrat, but not to McCain. Nearly a third remained on the sidelines, not contributing to any presidential candidate.

McCain’s struggle to mobilize the Bush fund-raisers is in part a sign of the disaffection among some GOP stalwarts for McCain…

More…

Full article…

Update: Hersh discusses his findings in detail in this NPR radio interview.

Seymour Hersh on CNN’s Late Edition, June 29:

Download video

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Full article at The New Yorker…

Steve Lamoureaux, the company’s chief innovation officer, said of the VP finding: “We never imagined that the same candidate would show up for both parties.”

More…

SENATOR JOHN McCain (R-AZ) may describe himself as a “realistic idealist,” but this formulation does little to paper over the very real schism among Republicans (and conservatives in general) about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. McCain has assembled a diverse group of advisors for his campaign, but should he win the presidency this fall, he will have to choose between two markedly different approaches to guiding America in the world.

In the aftermath of the Bush administration, particularly the impact of the war in Iraq, conservative politicians and policy intellectuals are again debating the nature of the global order, the purpose and use of American power, and what, if anything, is required to legitimize the exercise of that power, particularly military force. What is striking is the extent to which the divide between the two broad groupings in the McCain campaign (the pragmatists or realists on one hand and the idealists or neoconservatives on the other) resembles the divisions that had emerged in the closing days of the George H. W. Bush administration—and the continuing relevance of two documents, one produced by then–Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney’s Pentagon, the other developed by the James Baker/Lawrence Eagleburger State Department.

Full article here…