A Closer Look Here, There and Everywhere
by Trish PurcellDoes 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.
It's a mystery Trish. Cheney's, ergo the Bush Administration, "terrorism" track record is about as bad as it gets. Yet these disingenuous souls keep throwing out there how they have kept us safe from attack since 9/11. Well, hell wasn't that their job!?! I would imagine that just about any president after 9/11 would have found ways to keep us safe. Yet, how many would have been smart enough, and paying attention enough to do so BEFORE 9/11. As you say, Bush et al repeatedly ignored warnings from various sources, perhaps most blatantly Richard Clarke, chief anti-terrorist chief under both Clinton and Bush, that an attack was probable, much more so than the "imminent threat of a nuclear cloud" sold to us by then NSA chief Condi Rice.
There is no doubt that the trumped up war against Iraq diverted Al-Qaeda and every other terrorist (I'd venture they would say patriot) wanting to respond to that outrage. Funny how our government became enraged over 9/11 and clamored for revenge, but didn't think Iraqis and various Muslim groups might not seek the same after having one of their nations falsely and summarily attacked by the US! What the hell kind of double standard is that exactly!?!
And no doubt Al-Qaeda spent lots of time and energy focused in Iraq thereafter, but at what cost to us? Over 4,000 American soldiers killed, several times that serious maimed for life, emotionally and/or physically, and many more Muslims justified in hating Americans (unfortunately quite a few former allies as well -- we can only hope most of that latter group focused their ire on Bush and his bunch and not all of us Americans having nothing to do with the whole fiasco). And after six years, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continue – Cheney et al couldn’t even finish the task they started!
Just after 9/11 and during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, a massive undertaking to secure American airports, borders (not quite so successfully) and all other possible venues for attack were secured as well as possible. These are actions that would have automatically been taken by any president in office. So, to make the claim that America was not attacked again because of the war in Iraq and "enhanced interrogation techniques," is in no way measurable, clear or sensible.
In my humble opinion, the results of 9/11 were far more severe than the efforts that went into its preparation and execution. We are talking about a small group, comprised of men (ironically mostly from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq) who found ways to take flying lessons that excluded taking off and landing (you would have thought that should have raised more red flags in America), and were able to board and hijack several planes and ram them into a few buildings (much easier to do then before the security procedures instituted after the attack – and I still don’t get how NORAD and the FAA were so ineffective on 9/11). Big, yes, but not requiring an amount of effort that led to a worldwide "War on Terrorism" and a preempted invasion of a sovereign nation, not to mention the phoniness with which the build-up to the war was justified. In addition, one must weigh the effectiveness of focusing “some” (they have groups all over the world) of Al-Qaeda in Iraq against the fact that the invasion of Iraq and later on abuses of POWs created a huge and successful recruiting campaign for Al-Qaeda. In summation, it’s questionable just how safe the Cheney/Bush policies kept American homeland itself safe. The fact that there have been no more attacks on American soil cannot be directly linked to the war in Iraq and the interrogation techniques employed against many Muslims that were simply rounded up because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many of the attacks Cheney claims to have prevented appear rather bogus after close scrutiny.
Cheney now rails out against the Obama foreign policy and issues like closing Gitmo, but forgets that by doing so, he is also criticizing the policies of the Bush Administration. They were the ones that began the release of prisoners at Gitmo, and started talk about closing the facility. Cheney needs to find his bearings, and stop BSing in order to try to cover his own large butt and secure his own legacy, something that would not be possible anywhere but in the Twilight Zone. Will America be attacked again? Probably! No one refutes that. It’s just an odds on probability, regardless of who is president of the US, and in spite of all the most diligent efforts to prevent it. One gets the VERY STRONG impression that it is the latest Cheney and Republican “strategy” to try and convince people that any such attack, if it does occur, will solely be the blame of Obama’s policies, and not just the next logical step in a “war” that Cheney and the Republicans have done everything possible to encourage, nurture, and inevitably bring about.
I am old enough to remember silent movies and the reaction of the kids in the audience when the villain was sneaking up behind the poor little damsel in distress. "Look out! Look behind you!" they would yell at the screen.
And that's how I react every time I see Cheney with hunched shoulders and lowered head, peering up into the TV camera from behind evil-looking glasses with his treacherous mouth drawn to one side in it's usual sneering, mocking posture as he lies to the TV audience. And I want to yell at the screen, "He's tricking you into debating about various methods of torture while you totally forget to think about all the terrible things he and his flunky G.W. Bush did to our country, how they lied us into a war and especially about what is happening with Iraq's OIL today!"
I've been reading Craig Unger's "House of Bush - House of Saud" and every page makes my stomach churn. It reveals so much -- how the long-time relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi Arabia rulers, bankers, big business interests, oil industry and even rich relatives of Osama bin Laden all played a part in 9/11 and the two Gulf Wars.
I do hope you will read it.