When Dick Cheney mounted his full-throated defense of the previous administration's national security state at the curiously named American Enterprise Institute this afternoon, he made his core argument (that the Bush-Cheney torture and surveillance programs should be praised by a grateful nation, not shunned and despised by phony moralists who don't seem to mind when Jack Bauer does it...) based on a set of facts that are no longer operative. [Illustration at left by Rex Lameray]
Cheney continued to make the case that he ... I mean President Bush ... did what had to be done after 9/11 in order to thwart another -- imminent -- attack on America. They had to waterboard the bad guys you see -- and make no mistake, these weren't balerinas they were near-drowning -- because no one at the time knew when or where the next attack was coming. And it was coming. It's always coming... a few hundred turns on the waterboard and a mock burial or two later, the attack never came. See how well that worked?
The problem is: we now have at least a strong circumstantial case suggesting that the administration escalated the waterboarding in 2002 and 2003, long after the imminence of 9/11 have passed them by, but conveniently, right around the time they were building the case for invading Iraq. They waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times in 30 days in August of 2002, the same month Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, formed White House Iraq Group to try and "market" the war. They waterboarded Khalid Sheik Muhammad 183 times in March 2003, the same month we invaded Iraq. And we learned on May 13 from former NBC News investigative producer Bob Windrem (who gave the bombshell story to The Daily Beast since I'm presuming the New York Times and Washingto Post couldn't be bothered...) that they even tried to get the Iraq Survey Group to waterboard an Iraqi general in April 2003 -- not to thwart an "imminent" attack, but in order to produce false confessions to justify the invasion of Iraq.
But Dick Cheney didn't mention that today, nor did he bother to defend it. He didn't have to. The media has so thoroughly set aside the stunning revelations in the previous paragraph, that Cheney doesn't even feel the need to bring it up. He is free to continue arguing his case on pre-May 13 thinking, and he knows he'll get away with it.
After all, who's going to stop him ... the "media?" The vast majority of the Washington press corps has long since lost interest in the subject of how, and why, we got into Iraq. And as NBC's Mark Murray all-but admitted today, the mainstream press spends more time helping the GOP out with their media strategy than rethinking their credulous assent on the Iraq war. ... The Obama administration? They're all about "moving forward." ... Congress? Don't make me laugh. They're too scared of the vanishing right's mysterious power to cow them on national security issues even to vote for the money to close Guantanamo, and they can't even build up the spinal fluid to move forward on a truth commission. The American people??? I'm sure Dick, who was too scared to fight in Vietnam but is clearly not afraid of YOU, would simply say, "good luck with that."


Salon.com
Comments
Please do not be fooled by my avatar. If you have a moment to spare, I recently posted some political satire entitled, "Channeling Your Inner Cheney" which you might enjoy. It has already received seven positive ratings, but an 8th would make it an even #.
Sorry for the mixup, I hope you still decide to check it out.
BTW, I got a warning when I tried to check out your other blog:
Reported Attack Site!
This web site at blog.reidreport.com has been reported as an attack site and has been blocked based on your security preferences.
Attack sites try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.
Some attack sites intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.
I am astounded at the "media" for the bias in giving Cheney so much attention, letting Cheney get the last word, letting Cheney speak uninterrupted by those pesky questions....
Excellent post. I hope that you will write more about this.
"" The era of Republican navel gazing is over. "
"when exactly was advanced interrogation supposed to take place so as to avoid “suspect timing?"
---
The answer is "never." It is a violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. ratified -- read, signed into American law --in 1994. It is also a violation of the Geneva Conventions, ratified during the Reagan years. In short, there is no time that would have been appropriate to torture, it being illegal and all.
And you have completely missed the point, which is that Cheney chose to defend his and the administration's illegal conduct based on a rationale that is no longer relevant, namely that they were attempting to thwart further attacks. There is ZERO evidence of that, while there is lots of mounting evidence that what they were really looking for was false confessions that would bolster the case for war.
CHENEY'S SPEECH CONTAINED OMISSIONS, MISSTATEMENTS
By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers – Thu May 21, 7:10 pm ET
"Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.
In his address to the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative policy organization in Washington , Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."
In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.
FBI Director Mueller Robert Muller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.
— Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.
However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."
— Cheney said that the Bush administration "moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."
The former vice president didn't point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban .
There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan .
— Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."
However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld .
"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin , D- Mich. , and John McCain , R- Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."
— Cheney said that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad , the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.
He didn't mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed's alleged role in 9-11.
The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida ," Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow , who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.
— Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.
Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri , who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi , whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002 . While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida , which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.
A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.
— Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.
"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."
However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.
— Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.
A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.
In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005 , that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri , from Macedonia in January 2004 .
Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan , where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania .
In January 2007 , the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.
— Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.
The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates .
"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo ."
— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."
Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida , a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.
The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.
The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President ( George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait ."
A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad , at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida ."
I'll presume that this is a rhetorical question.
I do find it interesting that you seem to believe, without any evidence, that the Bush-Cheney regime tortured to prevent an "imminent attack" ... in 2003 ... 183 times in one month ... something backed up by no one but them (and these vaunted "two memos" that Cheney is so desperately clinging to,) but you dismiss the corroborating statements of multiple insider witnesses, from Charles Duelfer to Larry Wilkinson -- all of whom worked for the Bush administration. There is so much circumstantial evidence, dating back years, that the Bushies fabricated their case for war, and such clear evidence that they broke the laws banning torture (hell, Cheney admits and is PROUD of having ordered it) that the only question left is why the Obama team refuses to pursue prosecutions. Furthermore, the CIA did its own report in 2004 that found that no attack was thwarted due to torture. The super secret memos Cheney is clinging to were barred from release by the same CIA he claims to be defending ... and people who have seen them have also spoken out, saying they contain nothing helpful to your friend Dick.
At the end of the day, it's still a free country (despite the Bushies' best attempts to wiretap, sneek search and surveil the freedom right out of us...) and you can choose to buy what Cheney's selling, but that doesn't make him any more credible. A previous poster put up the text of Jonathan Landay's excellent deconstruction of the many myths Cheney pimped in his speech. Here's the link:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68643.html
BTW, Cheney also forgot to mention that 9/11 happened on his and Dubya's watch. So much for keeping America safe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042302446.html?hpid=topnews
and has never asserted that he thinks waterboarding is not torture. As defense secretary, he stands by the Army Field Manual, which absolutely bans the practice. Where are you getting your information? If it's Fox News, which it sounds like it is, you'd probably be better off just not watching TV at all...
What's even worse is they are now—as proven by Obushma's speech on the Guantanamo detainees and national security—looking backward, but only to replicate and continue the policies of Bush/Cheney. Our savior Barack is doing this while making lovely words about "our values" and the Constitution, etc.
But what does he actually call for: reinstituting the military commissions with hearsay evidence allowed, transferring uncharged, unindicted people into so-called supermax prisons, using our court system only "when feasible," and ongoing detention for people "who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger."
Obama is proposing a new system that will "fairly" and "consitutionally" provide unlimited detention.
I recommend that people read the transcript of the speech: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21obama.text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
I usually tell my students that the only stupid question is the one not asked.
You have succeeded in convincing me that I should at a minimum add a caveat to include questions asked by seriously deranged individuals.
IF mr gates agrees with you (which I doubt) than here are just a few of those who disagree with you:
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
United States Code 18:340 implementation of the UN Convention against torture
Washington University Law Review.
John McCain
Mike Huckabee
Joseph Biden
Chris Dodd
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, concurred by stating, in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he believes waterboarding violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – Professor Manfred Nowak
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture
Both houses of the United States Congress approved a bill by February 2008 that would ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
I think rudolph giuliani would agree with you, and michael mukasey is still considering the matter.
Osama bin Laden must be pissing his pants in laughter!
John Fenton
Gold Star Father
The truth about the WMD and how we got to invade Iraq, on the whim of this past administration remains unanswered.
The supposed "War on Terror" means War on an Idea. Why did'nt the past admin attack China, Russia, Korea, Isreal? There are terrorist activities going on in those nations even as we speak?
It is Truth that makes us all free.
Time to stand up an make a noise, like you're doing here.
"Well part of the evidence was deleted from the memo Obama released. The following line from Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, was marked out: that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country." --
The torture memos -- there were several of them, not one -- were released almost completely unredacted. In fact, how would you know what was in the blacked out portion if ... um ... it was blacked out??? That just makes no sense. What you're referring to is a separate statement made by Adm. Blair that he later clarified. In the first, he gave his opinion, which he is entitled to, as you are. In the clarification, he stated administration policy (ie, we dont' torture people anymore.) That does indeed prove that there are differences of opinion on the matter of whether torture works. The debate over whether waterboarding is torture is taking place between right wingers and the clouds, since it is a firmly established historical and legal fact that waterboarding IS torture. That's why WE have prosecuted people for it from World War II to Vietnam to that prison guard in Texas I think.
But that's just the point. The policy disagreement over whether torture works is academic. Whether or not you think it's effective, or Gates thinks it's thumbscrew type torture is irrelevant, since torture is illegal, and has been for a long, long time. It was illegal on 9/11, and 9/12 and ever day thereafter. There is no debate about that, and having some hack lawyers write you an excuse note doesn't make it legal.
Dick Cheney has freely admitted to war crimes. He's just savvy enough to know that the current administration isn't game to prosecute him.
Goodbye cruel world, I'm gonna hold my breath until I die!
1) Isn't anyone else absolutely appalled that we can sit here and state that "The vast majority of the Washington press corps has long since lost interest in the subject of how, and why, we got into Iraq." WTF, the goddamn war is/will cost us a 2 or 3 trillion by the time its all done and it has ruined thousands of families and lives. EVERYONE in the media who falls under that banner of losing interest should be let go and beaten for good measure.
2) please stop giving dick cheney any air time. He is a delusional pyschopath. We can only hope that his body guards put him and us out of his misery.
I, REPUBLICAN Sayeth ... so it must be 21% true
'...Congress are indeed not picking up on this war crimes nonsense, isn't it just barely possible that it's because that's all it is?'
seems like it to me. the flip-flop of all flip-flops in my books...
Couple of points to consider: the president's main job is to protect the citizens, since we've foiled 8 plots, it appears that the idiot Bush did a decent job and, it is interesting that Pres O is continuing many of their policies!
Also, how about releasing ALL the documents, memos AND the answers given during interrogation AND the plots that were prevented?? Are you that naive??
How about "bringing us together" like he promised and stop blaming the previous president? We don't let our children do this-why our President?? A LITTLE BALANCE IS IN ORDER.
RPD from Sydney
phm: 5/22 01:48 "First of all, waterboarding is considered torture by whom?"
mark 01:58 "I'll presume that this is a rhetorical question."
phm: 01:56 No it's not because I don't think that is as obvious as apparently you think it is. And Robert Gates, Obama's own Sec. of Defense, agrees with me.
Ummm, agrees with you on what, phm?
Based on the contortions with the poster of the piece, I am prepared for some sort of elliptical response, so give it your best shot.
Yours is perhaps the most important point of all, because if it is true that the Bush-Cheney regime tortured in order to send people like your son to war, then their crimes are compounded by the killing of mearly 5,000 American troops at their behest. I'm sure everyone on this board's thoughts and prayers are with you this Memorial Day weekend.
@Htowner77:
What are you talking about? I love it when right wingers make up "foiled plots," none of which has ever been substantiated other than by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and which include a supposed plot against a nonexistent tower in San Francisco, and these seven karate kids down here in Liberty City who were supposedly going to blow up the Sears Tower, but lacked the money for shoes ... or maybe Adnan Shukrijuma, the Guyanese born "terr'rist" who with a partner were supposedly going to blow up power stations and go on a shooting spree, but whose credit card got declined at a Florida gun show. Yeah. The Bushies really protected us ... except that one time when, like, 15 guys slipped by them and toppled the Twin Towers and they didn't know it was coming because all they had was a memo that said BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES ... oops.
@RPD from Down Under ... spot on. And those transgressions include falsifying the case for war, launching an unnecessary war that killed John Fenton's son and others, and apparently, using torture to try and fabricate facts that would make an unnecessary war appear necessary. The worst part is, people in the media are still letting Cheney argue torture from the ticking timebomb standpoint, and right wingers are still arguing it from that perspective, when the media people should know better.
@phm,
Dude, let it go. The only people who disagree that waterboarding is torture are members of the previous administration (for obvious reasons) and their supporters, also for obvious reasons.
And during the Spanish Inquisition, when they first came up with the technique, they had doctors on hand, too...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
hey dick cheney, does the term NANOTHERMITE mean anything to you?
more details in my blog
I would like to think, much like Joe McCarthy in the 50s, all it will take to burst this evil balloon and let the noxious gas escape, is one brave person on the right of national standing and good character, saying, "Have you left no decency, sir?" Unfortunately, as you know, they are trying to drum Colin Powell out of the party for doing so.
I think it's going to be a long time in the wilderness for these folks.