If It's On Fox, It Must Be True!

The FauxNews machine is working overtime to promote Mr. Rogers' recent trip to Afghanistan.

According to Mr. R., the Obama administration is "creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel" by "quietly ordering the FBI to start reading Miranda rights to suspected terrorists at U.S. military detention facilities in Afghanistan."  

[It would be interesting to determine the amount of time Mr. Rogers spends "in the field" relative to "inside the gates of Bagram Air Base."]

Chaos in the field?  That's a pretty serious statement.  

Yet U.S. military commanders told Fox that soldiers aren't Mirandizing anyone, and a DOJ spokesman stated that

"There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas," he said in a statement, adding, "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

It's worth noting that no other mainstream news source seem to be reporting this. Other than the usual suspects in the right-wing blogosphere, no one else is talking about it.  Some conservative bloggers are hedging a bit:  

More confirmation is needed before a general outcry takes hold 

Even The Weekly Standard has held off on a hissy fit: 

A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.”

That's right, folks: evidence given under duress [i.e., torture] is inadmissible in a court of law. You can't prosecute the bad guys without evidence.  Ergo, all law enforcement professionals -- from local cops to the FBI -- know that they need to play by the rules when capturing and interrogating suspects or they risk letting dirtbags walk out of the courtroom.

Approaching terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue isn't a new idea. The United States tried and convicted Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.  Abdel-Rahman was sentenced to life in prison and has been sitting in SuperMax since 1996.  The British, no strangers to fighting terrorism, have successfully prosecuted such cases through their court system for years.

Mr. Rogers once again turns to the emotional anecdote in lieu of sensible policy.  If he's genuinely concerned about troop safety and national security, and convinced of the facts, why isn't he shouting this from the rooftops instead of selectively whispering into friendly ears?  

UPDATE:  The American Prospect has a post on Gen. Petraeus' press conference, where he stated that 

"This is the FBI doing what the FBI does," Petraeus replied. "These are cases where they are looking at potential criminal charges. We're comfortable with this." He denied that his soldiers and other relevant American agents are reading Miranda rights to detainees, some of whom are detained as enemy combatants, while others are high-value anti-terror targets. (A U.S. federal court recently ruled that some Bagram detainees have the same habeas rights as prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.)

While it seems that Rogers (and the Fox News correspondent) are happy to play up fears that the Obama administration is soft on terror, Petraeus' didn't seem to concerned by the DOJ practice, which the DOJ denies began with the current administration. In another portion of his speech, discussing the comprehensive strategy launched against Al Qaueda in Iraq as an indirect model counter-terror operations in Afghanistan, Petraeus noted the importance of counter-insurgency amoung detainee populations and the need for releasing certain detainees to help win over the populace, noting that by the end of his time in Baghdad the recdivism rate among released detainees was a very impressive 1 percent.  [emphasis added]

General Petraeus says that his troops aren't Mirandizing detainees -- and he's not concerned about the FBI doing so.  Mr. Rogers says that IS happening.  Does that mean the four-star general is "soft on terror," or does that mean the congressman is a manipulator "misinformed"?

Once more with feeling

Mr. Rogers is shaking his Iranian Threat pom-poms again, this time on the Jack Lessenberry show.

Lessenberry listened to Mike's golly-gee explanation of the Iranian Threat, then neatly skewered Rogers' faulty logic (and flip-flopping history) in an essay titled Howling Wolf. Several important points that bear repeating:

1.) Rogers has demonstrated that political pressure easily trumps his FBI/House Intel experience that he so often references. Why should we listen to him this time?

Here’ s something else you may not have known about Mike Rogers, who represents a large district that sprawls from Oakland County past Lansing. Exactly five years ago, he came back from the Middle East and announced he had changed his mind and was no longer in favor of a military attack on Iraq.

Information from Saudi and Israeli intelligence agents had convinced him it wasn’t
necessary, he said. He held that position for about six weeks. But then he changed his mind again.

I imagine he, like other congressmen, was under great pressure from the White House. Well, we know how all that turned out. We were told Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But it wasn’t true, and now we are stuck in a quagmire, with no end in sight.

2.) Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it

The congressman thinks we can put adequate pressure on Iran and prevent them from getting nuclear materials by imposing sanctions. Maybe. But I was in elementary school when we were told we’d overthrow Fidel Castro through sanctions. I am a member of AARP now. The sanctions are still in place, and Fidel is still there. What if it did come down to military action against Iran?
[skip]
How grimly ironic it would be if our failure to see the truth in Iraq were to blind us about the truth in Iran.

3.) Even if we could all agree that invading Iran was a swell idea, we don't have sufficient troops (or cash) to execute that plan. An honest assessment of our military will show you active duty service members who are heading back for their third -- or fourth! -- rotation in Iraq, and National Guard and reservists who have served multiple year-long deployments. Allowing political gamesmanship to stretch our military this thinly does a grave disservice to our troops and their families, not to mention our nation's security.

The fact is that we now have fewer men in uniform than at any time since before Pearl Harbor. There are insufficient troops to send to Iran, even if the nation were in the mood to do so. Mike Rogers, a veteran himself, must know that. He also knows the story of the little boy who cried wolf once too often.

Three cheers for Lessenberry! Let's hope that other mainstream media folks will start making these points, instead of blindly quoting Mr. Rogers on the "threat" of Iranian WMD.

Willfully Ignorant?

Without sufficient caffeine, I opened this morning's NY Times to find my local legislator quoted in the front-page story, Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al-Quaeda in Pakistan.

“We have to change policy,” said Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee who has long advocated a more aggressive American intelligence campaign in Pakistan.

Suitably fortified with a second cup of coffee, I re-read the article.

Changing policy? Well, gosh! That's a GREAT idea!! Though one wonders just how long Mr. Rogers thinks we haven't been aggressive enough in Pakistan...

Less than a year ago, Mr. Rogers spoke at a Brighton Chamber of Commerce luncheon, touting his credentials as a member of the House Intelligence Committee. He called Afghanistan “a great success story” and Pakistan “a great friend.” He attributed reports of escalating violence in Afghanistan solely to Pakistan’s anti-terror efforts, and noted that progress in the region has been continuous. And he’s made other references to Pakistan as “our premier partner in the war on terror.”

So what exactly IS the story, Mr. Rogers?

In 2006, you brandished your membership in the House Intel Committee as a license to disagree with news reports, 'cause you had super-secret inside information that things were just swell in Pakistan.

In 2007, though, we find that you've apparently been (super-secretly?) fighting the good fight to CHANGE our intel policy in Pakistan... um, that would be the same intel policy that you thought was right on target last fall.

Oh, dear. Flip-flop is SUCH an unpleasant word.

Rogers Votes Against Pulling Troops Out of Iraq

The U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 2956, a bill;

To require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes.

Mike Rogers voted against this bill; the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. Which means he's supporting President Bush, who had this to say:

"I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops."

In other words: just give me the money and I'll do whatever I want with the troops. With this vote, it appears Congressman Rogers is okay with giving this reckless President of ours whatever he wants when it comes to Iraq. We are now in the 5th year of the Iraq Occupation, with no end in sight to the civil war our troops are refereeing, or the injuires they receive or casualties they suffer.

Our troop presence is also estimated to be costing our country $10 billion a month. That buys a lot of pell grants, health care, research into alternative fuels, extra teachers, public transit, better roads, [fill in the blank].

It is clear to only the most obtuse that this war is not worth the cost in lives, money, or resources. Our troops need to be brought home.

Others were hoping the man from Michigan's 8th District might do the right thing. But alas, so far, that is not the case.

Take Action Today in Lansing

There's lots of things in Michigan and Lansing that we all need to fight for, but as a country, we need to stand up to those who aren't looking out for our troops best interests.

I hope you'll consider taking a half-hour out of your lunch break today to do something to protect our troops from their own worst enemy, our President.

Consider joining me at noon at Mike Rogers' office to personally deliver letters from tens of thousands of Michigan's residents calling for a stop to the troop escalation in Iraq. From MoveOn -

On Thursday, MoveOn members are gathering outside hundreds of congressional offices to keep the pressure on Congress to block the escalation. We'll be holding signs and listening to compelling speakers, and we've invited the media.

We want to make sure we have a good-sized group from your district.

Can you join us at a "Congress Decides" letter delivery on Thursday around lunchtime in Lansing?

Where:Mike Rogers office on Michigan (between Holmes and Ferguson) Lansing
When: Thursday, Feb 22 2007, 12:00 PM
RSVP: MoveOn

A majority of those in Congress oppose the president's plan to escalate the war. Now we have to make sure they stop him. In a few weeks Congress will have to decide how far they're willing to go to block the escalation.

They're home for recess and this is our best opportunity to influence what they do when they return to Washington. They need to know that we're not going to rest until they start bringing our troops home.

The more of us who participate on Thursday, the louder our message will be. If we keep the pressure on now, we can make sure Congress does the right thing by blocking the escalation and taking steps to bring our troops home.

Can you join us on Thursday to tell Congress, You're the decider, you must stop the escalation?

Rep. Jack Murtha—who's been leading the fight to stop the escalation—recently told MoveOn members, "The time to act is now...We can get this done. We can bring our troops home."

Here in the 8th District we have an even bigger motivating factor, Mike Rogers' refusal to do what's right for the troops. As we've seen time and time again here at Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, Mike's not in the game of representing anyone else's interests besides his own extreme views.

We might not be able to bring them home tomorrow, but as our closest allies start to pull out there's no reason we should be putting any more troops at risk.

Our troops are the people that voluntarily risk everything to ensure our country stays great. Don't they deserve us fighting for them?

Rogers politicizes soldier’s funeral

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers chose the funeral of a Brighton solider killed in action to politicize the Iraq fiasco and to continue pushing his defense of the President’s failed policy in Iraq.

Army Spc. Andrew P. Daul, 21, became the 8th of nine soldiers with Livingston County ties killed in Iraq, and the second in the span of just one week. Rogers spoke at his funeral, and anyone would be honored to have a U.S. Congressman to speak at their son’s funeral. Rogers deserves credit for taking the time to attend the funeral and pay his respects to a true hero, but there is no excuse for politicizing it. This is what Rogers said at the funeral, according to the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus.

Not only did he help his fellow soldiers, but Rogers said Andrew Daul helped Iraqis while serving in that country. Because of soldiers like him, Rogers said, Iraqis would talk about the greatness of the U.S. soldier, and he read a letter from a mayor of an Iraqi town liberated by U.S. soldiers.

"Their sacrifice was not in vain," Rogers read aloud from the mayor's letter. "Let the world be proud of their sacrifice for humanity."

About Face!

In today's Press & Argus, Mike Rogers has now decided that he supports benchmarks for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Though he's still leery of an actual deadline for troop withdrawal,

A series of positive benchmarks -- with definite time frames for their achievement -- could prod the Iraqi government to improve its performance and the security situation in the country, he said.

Hmmm... Congressional candidate Jim Marcinkowski thought a benchmarked withdrawal was a sound policy approach as far back as April, but Mike Rogers felt that sort of talk was defeatist. How many more U.S. servicemembers need to be killed or wounded before Mike can admit that he was wrong?

NYT columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) voted for the war, and was honest enough to admit that his support had been a mistake:

“I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore.”

If the U.S. is ultimately going to retreat in Iraq, he said, “I would rather do it sooner than later. I am looking for answers, but the current course is unacceptable to this senator.”

Here at home, as U.S. troops and Iraqi citizens continue to die, Rogers is still looking for a "unified position" that everyone can "get behind."

"I think we've got to find a unified position... we will do more to solve the problem if we do it with one voice."

Let's review: 63% of Americans think the war is a mistake. That's a higher percentage than Bush received in 2000, or 2004. In fact, that's a higher percentage than Mike Rogers received last month. Sounds pretty unified to me...

Where He Stands: Military

Mike Rogers often talks about his support for the troops, but a look at his voting record shows that talk is about all they are getting from him.

Here are just a few of Rogers’ votes on military health care, at a time when U.S. troops are returning home with increasingly serious and complex injuries:

-- No to $13.5 billion over 5 years for the VA (HCR 95, Vote #149, 4/28/05)

-- No to a $53 million boost to veterans’ health care and benefits, including funding for medical and prosthetic research, combat-related trauma care, and support for spouses and children of service members who died during the War on Terror (HCR 2528, Vote #224, 5/26/05)

-- No to extending TRICARE health care benefits to National Guard and Reserve members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families (HR 1815, Vote #221, 5/25/05)

-- No to full retirement and disability benefits for veterans (HR 1588, Vote #616, 11/7/03)

The Disabled American Veterans rated Rogers a zero in 2004 and 2005. The The Retired Enlisted Association rated him 33% in 2004.