Former Powell Aide Lawrence B. Wilkerson: “The Truth About Dick Cheney”

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff of the Department of State during the term of Secretary of State Colin Powell, has a guest post titled “The Truth About Richard Bruce Cheney” on The Washington Note that goes beyond his blunt criticism on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, which generated a You Tube now popping up on many blogs.

His criticism is searing: Wilkerson essentially charges Cheney with playing fast and loose with the facts, omitting some important things, and doing serious damage to the Republican party itself. Go to the link to watch the You Tube and read the entire post, but here are some excerpts from his key points:

First, more Americans were killed by terrorists on Cheney’s watch than on any other leader’s watch in US history. So his constant claim that no Americans were killed in the “seven and a half years” after 9/11 of his vice presidency takes on a new texture when one considers that fact. And it is a fact….

….Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11–much touted by Cheney–is due almost entirely to the nation’s having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to “the Cheney method of interrogation.”

Those troops have kept al-Qa’ida at bay, killed many of them, and certainly “fixed” them, as we say in military jargon. Plus, sadly enough, those 200,000 troops present a far more lucrative and close proximity target for al-Qa’ida than the United States homeland.

ALSO:

Third–and here comes the blistering fact–when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops “the Cheney method of interrogation and torture”, the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.

My investigations have revealed to me–vividly and clearly–that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering “the Cheney methods of interrogation”, simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.

What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama’s having shut down the “Cheney interrogation methods” will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

AND:

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.

There’s a lot more, but at the end he focuses on an issue addressed here on TMV by many of our writers — some of them former or present Republicans: the future of the Republican party and Cheney’s current impact on it:

He and Rush Limbaugh seem to be its leaders now. Lindsay Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and all other Republicans of note seem to be either so enamored of Cheney-Limbaugh (or fearful of them?) or, on the other hand, so appalled by them, that the cat has their tongues. And meanwhile fewer Americans identify as Republicans than at any time since WWII. We’re at 21% and falling–right in line with the number of cranks, reprobates, and loonies in the country.

When will we hear from those in my party who give a damn about their country and about the party of Lincoln?

When will someone of stature tell Dick Cheney that enough is enough? Go home. Spend your 70 million. Luxuriate in your Eastern Shore mansion. Shoot quail with your friends–and your friends.

Stay out of our way as we try to repair the extensive damage you’ve done–to the country and to its Republican Party.

This will likely mean he’ll be attacked for being a secret Democrat, RINO, or that he’s a “disgruntled employee” (by the way: have you ever met a “gruntled employee?”) or just doesn’t “get it.” But, in reality. Wilkerson is indicative of one segment of the Republicans who broke with the Bush administration during election 8. Many of them are moderate Republicans and some strongly supported the first George Bush as President.

Read his guest post in its entirety.