Quote of the Day: Is Dick Cheney Panicking?
Our political Quote of the Day comes from Andrew Sullivan who wonders whether former Vice President Dick Cheney is “panicking” as news continues to emerge giving details about the extent of torture under the Bush administration. He points to Cheney’s increasingly harsh public statement taking aim at President Barack Obama and writes:
Did Cheney believe he could hide all this for ever?
Did he believe that hundreds of randomly seized human beings could be consigned to the black hole of Gitmo for ever? And was he really going to launch this kind of appalling attacks on his successors whenever they tried to move past this stuff or be forced, by the law itself and the Geneva Conventions, to investigate and prosecute violations of core human rights?
The ratcheting up of the rhetoric – “I think you have to be very careful. The world outside there — both our friends and our foes –will be quick to advantage of a situation if they think they’re dealing with a weak president or one who’s not going to stand up and aggressively defend America’s interests” – is particularly Weimar. He’s lashing out now, and using his surrogates to write chilling op-eds defending all of it. I see this as a sign oif weakness, not strength. Obama draws these people out like moths to the flame.
That flame is the truth. Let us see it all.
And, to be sure, during the campaign Obama did have a talent to move his critics to go after him bigtime and as his critics flailed way, they imploded and looked frantic and desperate by comparison. Cheney is starting to look like he has a real personal dislike of Obama and that he’s trying to protect his legacy and his legal position. Former Bush administration bigwig Andy Card insists this is all just a matter of policy:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
What’s the likely impact of Cheney’s esclating war of words aimed at the President who belongs to the party that beat his in the presidential election? MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro hve some thoughts:
Wow, did a former vice president just suggest that a sitting American president is weak? Is there a precedent to this in modern American history?
….Politically, as we’ve said before, Democrats are probably more than happy for Cheney to be back in the news as the defender of the Bush administration. As one GOP strategist tells the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, Cheney “is a face of the past. A face of conflict and too polarizing. So, not a good face of the party.”
In fact, a December 2008 NBC/WSJ poll showed Cheney with a fav/unfav rating of 21%-58%. But this entire Cheney vs. Obama debate on interrogation fires up both bases — and thus makes for perfect cable chatter. Yet what are people in the middle thinking? The answer to that question will tell you the short-term winner of this debate. One other question we have: Does Cheney actually have the ability to declassify CIA memos?
Prediction: polls have shown that Cheney has dismal credibility with independent and moderate voters — just as his polls ovall have been dismal. His recent comments increasingly sound like someone who has an axe (or waterboard) to grind.
34 Responses to “Quote of the Day: Is Dick Cheney Panicking?”
We Don’t What?…
……
When you spend your time reading Excitable Andy, it’s no wonder you could miss articles from people who actually know what they are talking about.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
You’re welcome.
Me thinks poor Joe S protests just a little too much. Cheney got away with bluster and intimidation for years in hiding his horrible secrets, time to let the facts out and show what these clowns did – break the law, use comical logic in justifying it, and then sweep it under the rug. They are now scared sh*tless and rightfully so.
jwest,
If there is actual evidence that torture produced solid intelligence, that should be part of the debate. I hope you'll join me in a call to declassify all the findings from the torture sessions and what was done with that information.
What it boils down to is Cheney is simply an evil person – Darth Cheney – The Lord of Darkness.
Cheney is asking for additional memos to be released, that doesn't sound like panicking.
Chris,
I’m glad to join you and Dick Cheney in calling for the release of all information surrounding this subject.
DaGoat is absolutely right. People are panicking, but it sure isn’t Cheney or anyone on the right.
Sullivan responds to the article you cited jwest:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily…
I’m glad to join you and Dick Cheney in calling for the release of all information surrounding this subject.
I think you mean, “all information surrounding this subject that hasn't been destroyed.” Remember, many of these torture sessions were videotaped, but those videos have all been eliminated, shall we say.
As to the “personal” dislike of Cheney for Obama…it may go a little deeper than that.. You probably never read, or forgot about this little gem courtesy of Reuters recently:
****
“Air Force One touched down at Baghdad International Airport a day after a string of seemingly coordinated bombings across the Iraqi capital killed 37 people. On Tuesday, a car bomb killed nine people and wounded 20 in the Shi'ite Kadhimiya district of northwest Baghdad, police said.
The attacks underscored security challenges as the U.S. military prepares to implement Obama's order to withdraw all combat troops by August 2010.. Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/id…
*****
What should be a RED ALERT as to the nature of the bombings and the fact that they came the day before Obama landed “secretly”, is written off with nary a glance. Why the hell would Al Qaida want to piss off the one US official that's pulling for troop withdrawel? Why give impetus to keep troops there? Who would want to keep troops there and simultaneously “send a message” to Obama in that regard? And how the hell did Al Qaida know he was landing there the next day?
If Cheney or his surrogates had anything to do with those “seemingly coordinated bombings” the day before Obama landed…we'd better clean house and clean house fast. “Outing” our president's secret whereabouts while in enemy territory could be seen as accessory to attempted murder..
It is important to remember, as you venture out into the fever swamps, that a person close to Mr. Obama would have been the one to have 'outed' the President's secret whereabouts. Probably Joe Biden, trying his best to get into the Oval Office.
OK, people are seriously suggesting Dick Cheney contacted Al Qaeda so they could set off a bunch of bombs the day before Obama arrived? This is where you guys are going with this?
people are seriously suggesting Dick Cheney contacted Al Qaeda so they could set off a bunch of bombs the day before Obama arrived
More sane commentary from the Left. Yeesh.
One possibility of Cheney's that no one here may have considered is that no memos ever existed that showed actionable evidence derived from torture. That would fit Cheney's modis operandi to a tee. Point to non-existent memos and then blame Obama for not releasing them.
If memos do appear showing that torture gave us information, that certainly reignites the debate on an ethical level. The question then would be, “How many American isdeals are we willing to trash to get amoral terrorists?
Chris,
What Sullivan (and co-buffoon Chris Mathews) is trying to do is conflate enhanced interrogation with the bumbling antics of the National Guard at Abu Ghraib.
He recognizes that the truth of the effectiveness of the interrogations at Gitmo is coming out and there is no way to stop it. The lies about the techniques not working are being exposed and Andy needs to deflect onto something, anything, so he doesn’t look like the fool he his.
I agree with your second paragraph there, Hemm, which I think is what ChrisWWW and others are saying too. It's not that the existence of evidence concerning actionable intel derived from the interrogations would exonerate the people who authorized the use of these techniques, but it's still an important set of facts for us to know.
If the interrogation techniques yielded no actionable info, or if there were a few nuggets within a large amount of false and misleading information, then the case is closed.
If a large amount of information was gleaned, which saved American lives, then I still feel the ends don't justify the means but we should at least be trying to figure out if there were alternate means available to achieve the same security results.
As far as the possibility you raise that Cheney's bluffing, I don't know, that doesn't seem plausible. All Obama would have to do is call his bluff.
great jwest
Just the person to ask. What American ideals are you willing to give up to “get the bad guys?”
I mean really, in the other thread you wouldn't answer how many times you needed to be water boarded before you call it torture. At least here you could let us know which values you're ready to trash the3 protect the American way.
From the looks of it, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and pretty much any shred of Human Decency and Kindness that we may have had.
CS
The “non-existent” memo ploy is probably fantasy on my part, but as to Obama's response, how do you prove they never existed? You can't prove a negative.
It's not like things like this haven't happened before. Rove once tipped a Texas election by claiming his office was bugged by Democrats. How do you prove you didn't do it? You can't.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1343.html
I'm just saying these guys play high stakes poker like you and I never have.
Chris,
If you and the rest of the left-wing cabal could ever agree on your definitions of what is what, I could possibly give you an answer.
Words mean things. Try to use the right ones and then (probably most importantly) stick with the definitions you started with.
Notice how Obama has changed his mind regarding the possible prosecution of those who ordered the torture procedures? This happens the day after Cheney appears on Hannity demanding that all memos be released. It appears that it is Obama who is panicking.
I agree DQ
But some may not. For the Jack Bauer nuke in NY scenario, some would say, “screw it, I'll beat it out of him!” That fact that that scenario will never come up is of course beside their point.
It's the guy in a cell for months and years that is probably the most common “reality” to this hypothetical. Somebody tells me my wife will die in 15 minutes if I don't find out something, and I make no guarantees about my actions. just sayin'
The techniques at Abu Ghraib are similar to the ones authorized at Gitmo. If anything the Gitmo techniques were worse. We just don't have the pictures.
Precisely.
Your side lost the arguments over the definition of torture decades, if not centuries ago.
Sure, you can't prove a negative- but there would be two possibilities if Cheney was bluffing; one would be that there is evidence to the contrary of what he's saying, and in that case Obama could make that public. Second possibility is that there's zero evidence one way or the other, presumably if ALL documents surrounding the interrogation sessions had been destroyed. Obama would then publicly announce that if he could, he would release all documents surrounding this issue so that the public could make informed judgments on whether or not Cheney's statements are accurate, but unfortunately he's unable to do so because the previous adminstration ordered all the documentary evidence destroyed.
Either way would be checkmate for Obama in terms of swaying public opinion against Cheney's assertion that we got actionable intel from those sessions which prevented attacks.
jwest
The memos in question address this definition nicely.
Just one of the points, to cause the person to fear imminent death. In the same memo, it states the purpose of water boarding is to cause the subject to feel like he's drowning. I'm sure you can make a distinction between those two from the comfort of your keyboard.
I suggest, however, that those being treated so do not.
So that's part of my answer, where's yours.
What number of sessions between 1 and 183 would make you think you were being tortured? Third time asked.
CS
I like your logic.
It may well be as you see it. And here it comes…. however, if Obama says that all documents have been released except those destroyed, all Cheney would have to do is say “They were there when we left.”
Additionally, Cheney may be referring to memos he knows can't be released for real national security reasons. He wins again because “Obama refused to release my proof.” It's all conjecture and I can't wait to see how this game gets played out.
Either way, we'll have more transparency than we do now I hope.
Well, I only have had a chance to glance at the stories, but it looks like CIA is saying that there's truth to what Cheney alleges- that large scale attacks were prevented as a direct result of waterboarding.
You know, the legal argument used by Bybee about water boarding is that it is part of SERE training. The thing he feels to mention is that trainees can say “I quit!” any time things get to be too much. That's a fact that means everything to a detainee who has no control over what's happening to him. It's another part that makes this torture, and makes SERE training a non-comparison.
CS
I'll go look before I head home.
Why would we believe the guy who was Bush's senior speechwriter for years? I'm not at all sure whether or not torture “worked.” If it did, it seems unlikely that there was enough information to go back to the well 183 times! And, I don't know if we have data which discriminates between interrogation methods and the actionable intelligence obtained. Certainly, these memos by themselves give no specifics on this issue. They give very specific information about the torture, so it is a bit odd that they simply make unsupported statements about its effectiveness. That is, even, if we believe that is the key issue. I don't. I've read several autobiographies by those who were tortured by various governments, and they suggest that the experience does permanent harm every time, and that they would have said anything to stop the it. And, they all state that they made untrue statements for just that purpose. That's why just getting “evidence” of terrorist plots isn't proof that actual plots existed or were foiled. Diane Feinstein's intelligence committee is exploring this and other issues right now, and we should allow her committee time to do its work.
Yes we are “going there” with the “string of seemingly coordinated bombings” just before he touched down in Bagdhad April 7.
US citizens tend to take intelligence leaks that jeopardize the safety of the Commander-In-Chief seriously..
I for one certainly do.
jwest, “DaGoat is absolutely right. People are panicking, but it sure isn’t Cheney or anyone on the right.”
I agree that Cheney and anyone on the right aren't panicking…. they're just hysterical.
Well… Bush and Cheney broke US and international laws. Bush and Cheney also lied about torturing (they claimed we didn't). I think the US stands for rule of law, justice and human dignity (none of which the Bush administration cared about). If we don't then we're just another two bit banana republic.
I personally do not see the necessity of having a debate about throwing away our American values in order to protect our American values.
I don't give a twaddle what the memos may or may not prove about the effectiveness of torture. That's a secondary aspect. This whole debate over torture takes away the real focus on the war on terror: finding those b*stard terrorists who taunt and threaten us from their caves in Afghanistan/Pakistan and taking them out.
Besides, if torture works, then why is bin Laden and his associates still at large? We have lots of terrorists in custody….. and supposedly torture works and has helped save countless lives…. I guess the torturers just can't get the terrorists to tell us where they were living previously to being caught.
I don't give a twaddle what the memos may or may not prove about the effectiveness of torture. That's a secondary aspect.
Sure, but it still is a secondary aspect- for Americans to consider that we may in fact have to give up some security in order to uphold our principles, unless we can determine other methods to substitute for these in getting information. In that sense it's not part of a 'debate' per se, but part of the larger discussion we need to have.
Besides, if torture works, then why is bin Laden and his associates still at large?
It doesn't follow logically that something has to be 100% effective in order to say that it works. The people who were subjected to this may well have not had that information.