May 2009 Archives

Does Dick Cheney, the use-to-be Vice President, not grasp that he is no longer in office? Or, is his sudden talkativeness and hunger for the spotlight (after eight years of hiding in the dark and keeping secrets) just a simple case of CYA motivated by fear of prosecution?

Whatever is behind his front and center performance one thing is clear. Cheney is able to look straight into the camera and lie without blinking an eye. It is amazing! He continues to make claims that have been publicly discredited and he does it with his usual arrogance and certitude that if he says it, it must be true. In spite of the dismal failure of the administration of which he was a part; in the face of video tape of him contradicting himself; despite written proof that much of what he claims is false; this man just keeps on saying it. Does he really believe if he repeats a lie often enough it will magically become true? Or does he think the people are so stupid they will just believe him?

Actually there are some examples of just that kind of stupidity but they are not found among "the people" but rather among the media. Following the Obama and Cheney security speeches, Pat Buchanan proved his intellectual prowess (NOT!) when he referred to Cheney's remarks as "candid." Wolf Blitzer proved once again that he is a hack by suggesting to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that Obama should meet with Cheney to discuss the security of our country. Why in the world would the President meet with the man who created many of the problems he must now try to solve? Ralph Peters said, "every single point he (Cheney) raised was accurate" but since he's a Fox News strategic analyst his stupidity is not in question.

• Cheney claimed that "there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations."

  In fact a 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee Report concluded that military "interrogation policies were influenced by the Secretary of Defense's December 2, 2002 approval of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at GTMO," and that those "policies were a direct cause of detainee abuse and influenced interrogation policies at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq."

• Cheney claimed that detainees did not provide information before "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used. He said those techniques "were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed."

  In fact former FBI agent Ali Soufan testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 13 about the success of non-harsh interrogation methods. An interrogator himself, Soufan stated that "the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again." Soufan then presented a "timeline" of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation, which he said showed that "many of the claims made in the memos about the success of the enhanced techniques are inaccurate." Soufan also testified about other uses and successes of the informed interrogation approach. He stated that his interrogation of Osama bin Laden's former chief bodyguard, Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, also known as Abu Jandal, was "done completely by the book (including advising him of his rights)," and that, from it, "we obtained a treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence."

• Cheney claimed that "From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans."

  It's a documented fact that al-Libbi, who was waterboarded, provided information -- later shown to be false -- that was cited by both President Bush and Colin Powell as evidence that Saddam Hussein was working with al Qaeda in developing chemical weapons. Libbi's false information led us to war in Iraq.

• Cheney claimed that giving voice to the idea that American interrogation techniques have become a recruitment tool for terrorists "excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left, 'We brought it on ourselves.' "

  It is a documented fact that Gitmo has been a recruitment tool for terrorists. This is not an argument that we deserved to be attacked; it is rather the recognition that something we have done has given our enemies a tool we do not want to give them and an effort to remove that tool. . Both Military and FBI interrogators back up the claim that the torture at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have directly resulted in recruiting for al Qaeda

Dick Cheney is not a credible spokesman for how to keep our country safe. On his watch intelligence warnings about a coming al Qaeda attack were ignored and resulted in the 9/11 deaths of nearly 3000 Americans. Why would anyone think an out of office politician with such a dismal track record can speak with authority about what works or doesn't work when it comes to our security.

Then along comes Liz Cheney. This nut, er apple, didn't fall far from the tree. She pitter pats along in Daddy's footsteps, parroting his revisionist history with a voice more shrill and a manner more abrasive. And anyone cares what she thinks why? Media with its usual disregard for getting out the truth and enlightening the public continues to give her a place at the table and a microphone. More of their "let's create a brouhaha instead of reporting the news" kind of journalistic dysfunction.

Yes, we need a truth commission if for no other reason than to get these two objectionable people off our television screens. Go back to your dark places and many secrets Mr. Cheney and wait for your comeuppance. And take your daughter with you.

Christianity by definition is following the teachings of Christ. One of those teachings is that whatever we do to the least of our brethren we do to Christ. In Matthew 26: 41-45 Jesus says, "Out of my sight, you condemned, into that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink... I was ill and in prison and you did not come to comfort me...I assure you, as often as you neglected to do it to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me." There are many offenses named in the Bible but this is the only instance in the gospels where Jesus is quoted as condemning the doer to hell.

With that in mind, when Republicans claim to be the party of Christian values how do they reconcile:

• The Republican theory of tax cuts or tax credits as the solution to everything when the people who most need the help are the elderly, the disabled and the poor - people who do not make enough to take advantage of offered tax credits or tax cuts.
• The Republican theory of the poor just having to work hard and pull themselves up by their bootstraps when the poor often have no boots and therefore no bootstraps with which to pull themselves up.
• The Republican theory of fiscal responsibility that protects business interests and the wealthy but leaves the poor, the elderly, and the disabled without help or protection by cutting and eliminating the social programs that serve them.
• The Republican theory that small government is the end all, be all, because the only responsibility of government is to serve special interests and the rest of the people be damned!

How are Christ's teachings reflected in these theories? Where is the care for the "least ones" in the practice of these theories? How large the plank of hypocrisy in the eye of such Christians!

The health care reform plan unveiled by Republicans is just one more example of their total lack of understanding, compassion, and (that word they don't understand) empathy, for the people of America who live in a reality so different from their own.

In their usual "fool them with the name" approach, the plan is titled "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009." Sounds like a good thing doesn't it? However, noticeably absent from the choices offered is a public insurance option. Instead they offer a tax credit which may help the middle class but does not help the most vulnerable; the most needy. What the plan does do is continue to protect and promote the insurance companies that have been profiting at the expense of the poor and seriously ill for years.

Real health care reform needs to remove profit from the system. It is obscene for people to make a profit on the illness and suffering of others. Where did such an idea ever come from and how did it get such a strong hold on a very basic need of the people? If ever there was a business that by its very nature should be non-profit, health care is it. There are all types of businesses available for entrepreneurs to make their fortunes, for large corporations to rake in huge profits. The business of filling basic human needs should not be among them. Health care as a for-profit business is the free market run amok.

Taking profit out of the picture makes an immediate and huge cut in health care expense. If all premium payments went to fund medical treatments and did not have to produce an ever increasing percentage of profit we would be making an effective start on healthcare reform. The for-profit companies could continue to do business if they chose not to become non-profit, but they probably wouldn't survive very long. Wouldn't that be too bad and so sad!