How To Fudge the Truth With Precise Language
As Spencer Ackerman thoroughly documented here, those two memos from 2004 and 2005 that former vice-president Dick Cheney wanted the CIA to release because, he said, they would prove that a set of alternate procedures torture produced actionable intelligence that saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks, prove no such thing.
That did not stop Cheney from telling CNN that the memos do vindicate the use of harsh interrogation techniques torture — but he does it without ever saying that life-saving information was gained through the use of torture. Sound impossible? It isn’t for Dick Cheney — the master of obfuscation (emphasis in original):
I’ve noted this before, but Dick Cheney is as masterful as any Washington hand at using precise languate to obfuscate. And today the old master completely had his way with poor, hapless CNN.
Look at how CNN is now reporting Cheney’s claims of vindication today:
Cheney says documents show interrogations prevented attacks
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says documents released Monday support his view that harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects prevented attacks and yielded crucial information about al Qaeda.
Actually, no, Cheney didn’t claim that the newly released documents showed that torture “prevented attacks” at all. Here’s the Cheney statement that this story is based on:
“The documents released Monday clearly demonstrated that the individuals subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda,” Cheney said in a written statement. “This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks.”
Cheney is not claiming a causal relationship between torture and the intelligence gleaned from interrogations. Rather, he’s saying that the same individuals who were tortured also happened to yield the most important evidence about Al Qaeda. He’s not saying that the docs proved torture was responsible for producing that info.
There’s a reason Cheney worded his statement this carefully: The documents don’t prove torture worked, as he claimed. Don’t believe me? Go to paragraph 11 of this New York Times article, which says the same.
Feeling lazy? I’ll do the clicking and counting for you. I’ll even provide paragraphs 9 and 10 as well as 11, because they help with context and continuity (I’ve bolded the crucial lines):
In what appeared to be a response to the Justice Department’s release, the C.I.A. later on Monday released previously secret agency reports from 2004 and 2005 that detailed intelligence scoops produced by the interrogation program.
One of the reports calls the program “a crucial pillar of U.S. counterterrorism efforts” and describes how interrogations helped unravel a network headed by an Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali. The other report details information elicited from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, chief planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying it “dramatically expanded our universe of knowledge on Al Qaeda’s plots.”
Those reports, which former Vice President Dick Cheney had sought to have released earlier this year, do not refer to any specific interrogation methods and do not assess their effectiveness.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “How To Fudge the Truth With Precise Language”
I said it in the other thread but will reiterate it here, the revealed documents neither hurt or helped the Cheney case. They apparently support that useful information was gathered by these debriefings that help security efforts but the non redacted portions do not suggest that “enhanced interrogation” tactic were the reason. If we could see the entire document and see no evidence of the usefulness of thiese techniques then Cheney's argument would be greatly hurt, if we could see the entire document and it supported Cheney's claim then his position would be strengthened (although personally I likely would not accept it since I consider at least some of these techniques as torture), However given that we see neither an affirmation nor a denial on these techniques in the non redacted portions its pretty much a wash.
I know who David Addington is, Leonidas. I have read a great deal about him and about Cheney.
I thought you may have, but i thought it might be useful to post the link in case you hadn't or for others. I think Cheney is not even close to the same league as Addison. The real power is often behind the curtain.
I love the comparisons between this and Clinton's infamous parsing of the word “is.” Both are funny, but only this one is about torturing people to death. :-/
Come on, already, Kathy. You fudge the language, too.
“comparisons between this and Clinton's infamous parsing of the word 'is.'”
Far from the same, as it affects or offends Americans. With the torture, it's simply a tiresome legalism.
[...] link is being shared on Twitter right now. @ucmtsu, an influential author, said UCMTSU How To Fudge the [...]
The real power is often behind the curtain, and no true “Master” of obfuscation, would make himself such a highly visible target as Cheney did.
I don't agree that Addington was the “real power” behind Cheney — Addington worked for Cheney, not for himself. I don't believe that anything would have happened that Cheney didn't want to happen. And nothing that I've read has even so much as hinted that Addington had more power than Cheney.
What I do think (and perhaps this is what you meant in the first place) is that Addington was a “hidden” power. People didn't know he was there, or what he was doing, exactly. I mean, people of course knew he was there physically, but Cheney was the visible one because he was vice-president. Addington carried out Cheney's wishes, and he took a lot of initiative, but never to do something Cheney didn't want. And he wasn't out front. He was not the one who made speeches,who appeared with the president, who was quoted in the media, etc. (except possibly on background).
Having said all this, and regardless of how one would define Addington's precise role, he was one powerful dude in the Bush admin. He had a lot of power, he wielded it ruthlessly, and he was scary. Or maybe the better word is “feared.” No one should have that much power.
Come on, already, Kathy. You fudge the language, too.
DLS, do you have a point? If not, the pencil sharpener is in the corner.
” do you have a point?”
Assuming this wasn't just a sad stunt: “If you have to ask…”