Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Sorry, Mike – My trust in the former VP was tainted with one thing he mentioned in the VP debates in the last Presidential election. I don’t remember the details, but it referred to a particular proposed tax which he said would fail small businesses. I remember doing a bit of research and learning that, in the instance he described, the business would be filing differently than he claimed.

As for this speech:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3237981

I gotta give it to Cheney. He really knows what he’s doing.

I personally don’t mind Cheney, but let’s be honest – he’s exceedingly unpopular with the majority of Americans. Yet, somehow, he’s been kicking Obama’s ass on this issue. How can you lose out to someone so unpopular? Either Cheney is very good or Obama is very incompetent. Oh, wait, it’s both.

@Cary: I don’t know what you are talking about. As for the link you provided, did McClatchy run a similar story in regard to Obama’s speech?

I notice the article made a point to say that Cheney’s claim about stopping attacks with the info from enhanced interrogations was bunk. If so, why doesn’t Obama declassify the memos and make a fool of Cheney?

Something tells me that NOT declassifying these memos, while purposely releasing others is a sure sign that Cheney is right.

@SpideyTerry: Cheney’s popularity, or unpopularity, is only a casualty of the Bush policy of not responding to the vicious 8 year hate campaign launched against both Cheney and Bush. Interesting that Cheney’s popularity is rising the more people compare him to Obama.

From Cary’s McClatchy thingy:

The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

No…I disagree: It’s the (myth)characterization of these techniques as something other than they are, that’s hurt our image abroad; it’s the comparison of Guantanamo to Soviet gulags and other mischaracterizations and media myth-making and overexaggerated claims.

Why does McClatchy (Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel) keep churning out disinformative op-eds (oh…was this a “straight” news piece?)? Point by point by point…the entire piece is rubbish. And it concludes with this:

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad , at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no “direct operational link” with al Qaida .

I distinctly recall Scott and Mark Eichenlaub attempt to “set the record straight” with Strobel and Landay, including in comments sections on his original article (which seem to have disappeared), to no avail.

@Cary: One would expect trash such as McClatchy to be quickly and harshly critical of Cheney and totally ignore the contradictions in the Obama attack.

@Cary: — Cheney said that the Bush administration “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.”

The former vice president didn’t point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban .

>> Cheney didn’t claim to get all of them.

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan .

— Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration’s interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on “a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency.”

However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld .

“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own,” said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin , D- Mich. , and John McCain , R- Ariz. “The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees.”

>> You mean a Democrat-sponsored witch hunt found something to tie to Rumsfeld? Someone stop me from falling over!

— Cheney said that “only detainees of the highest intelligence value” were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad , the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

He didn’t mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed’s alleged role in 9-11.

>> Ali Soufan was gone by June 2002 and could not possibly know what was obtained after that.

The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods “was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida ,” Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow , who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration’s detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.

— Cheney said that “the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence,” but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri , who’s known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi , whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002 . While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq’s links with al Qaida , which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.

>> One would not expect everything to be accurate, nor was that asserted.

A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.

>> Finally, some good news.

— Cheney accused Obama of “the selective release” of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

“I’ve formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained,” Cheney said. “Last week, that request was formally rejected.”

However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.

>> So what? Obama can still release them!

— Cheney said that only “ruthless enemies of this country” were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005 , that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri , from Macedonia in January 2004 .

Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan , where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania .

In January 2007 , the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.

>> So, unlike Matt Maupin, this guy is still alive?

— Cheney slammed Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.

The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush’s second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates .

“One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back,” Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. “So we need help in closing Guantanamo .”

>> Bush was talking about closing Gitmo in 2006. Cheney didn’t want it closed, and it appears Cheney was right all along.

— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account “dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.”

Cheney didn’t explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida , a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

>> There are clear links between Saddam and Al Qaida. Democrats are the ones who rebut them.

The late Iraqi dictator’s association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.

The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam’s regime “has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President ( George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait .”

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad , at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no “direct operational link” with al Qaida .

>> Not direct- the link came through the EIJ.

Great Op-Ed from Brooks (it’s been a while). He points out how both “debaters” yesteryday attempted to fudge history in order to make themselves look better.

Better yet, Power Line has a four-part analysis of Obama’s campaign speech, er, speech on national security.

Close GITMO, a grand notion. Where do the inmates go from there?
Even their Countries of origin won’t take them. They are dangerous characters.
Cheyney was right and Obama still doesn’t get it. It is Obama’s War now.

Powerline also has this response to Cary’s “news” story above:

THE MOST INSANELY BIASED “NEWS” STORY IN HISTORY
Share Post PrintMay 21, 2009 Posted by John at 10:47 PM
At least I think it’s intended to be a news story. It popped up on Yahoo News a while ago, which I assume means that many thousands of people will read it. It’s written for McClatchy by two reporters–I guess they are supposed to be reporters–named Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel and is titled “Cheney’s speech contained omissions, misstatements.” The article is basically a compendium of DNC/Daily Kos talking points from 2003 to the present. It is full of falsehoods, long-discredited canards, and misleading statements. I’m going to bed and don’t have time to deconstruct it, but if you read it no doubt you will be able to make corrections as you go along. It is one of those “news stories” that is intended solely for the ignorant. If we had comments, maybe we could let our readers tear this piece of nonsense apart line by line while we sleep. Perhaps someday.

This from Powerline is worth repeating also:

One of the most dishonest moments in Obama’s speech came when he assured us that detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has undermined our security:

Guantanamo became a symbol that helped Al Qaida recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo, likely, created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained. So the record is clear. Rather than keeping us safer, the president at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.

The “record is clear?” The record is that there were no successful attacks after 9/11. What “record” can Obama possibly be talking about? And what evidence is there that Guantanamo “created…terrorists around the world?” On its face, it is absurd to think that anyone will join an organization that chops off people’s heads and gouges out their eyes with spoons because he is outraged that at Guantanamo Bay–what? A female interrogator sat on a detainee’s lap? It is jihadist ideology, not a belief that Americans are meanies, that draws recruits to al Qaeda and like-minded groups. (In fact, jihadis tend to think that Americans are softies.)

Moreover, while there are no data on terrorist recruitment, one thing we know about extremist organizations is that it is success, not failure, that brings adherents to their banners. After 9/11, al Qaeda has been dogged by failure, defeat and the loss of most of its key operatives through death or capture.

Obama, in short, just made up his purportedly empirical claim that Guantanamo Bay made the U.S. less secure. It is another example of his conviction that he can slip any sort of howler past the American people.

@Mike’s America:

While I do agree that the article I posted is more of an OpEd piece which sells itself as News, the OpEd piece you’ve provide to refute it doesn’t seem to refute it at all, other than some name calling.

So, while we’re trading OpEd pieces, here’s one I which states my own point of view quite well;

http://weblogs.amny.com/entertainment/urbanite/blog/2009/05/henican_obama_reclaims_war_on.html#more

Cary,

Scott took the time to fisk the article. I don’t see much name-calling in his post.

@Wordsmith:

Thanks for pointing this out, seems I missed Scott’s post and will take a look when I get a moment to do so.

Cary (corrected… Fit Fit instead) INRE Brooks op-ed you posted… most specifically the wrap up of his musings:

What Obama gets, and what President Bush never got, is that other people’s opinions matter. Goldsmith puts it well: “The main difference between the Obama and Bush administrations concerns not the substance of terrorism policy, but rather its packaging. The Bush administration shot itself in the foot time and time again, to the detriment of the legitimacy and efficacy of its policies, by indifference to process and presentation. The Obama administration, by contrast, is intensely focused on these issues.”

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

First, to you as you say this states your case…

…so a plain box containing seriously great NY cheesecake is a loser, but take the same cheesecake and put it in a deli box with tied up ribbons and it’s manna from heaven? Either you like the cheesecake or you don’t. The pretty package has nothing to do with that first bite melting in your mouth.

Such is the case with the Bush policies. You may not have liked how they were “packaged” for public consumption, but it’s the same damn cheesecake that Obama’s peddling under his “O” brand. So sorry if doing the right thing for the country has to be “packaged” for anyone.

BTW, INRE that “packaging” nonsense… when it comes to Obama, you may want to keep in mind that pretty baskets with ribbons often contain an asp…

Mostly I disagree with Brook’s notion that Bush shot himself in the foot “…by indifference to process and presentation.” I’d like to remind the world that the “presentation” was thoroughly muddied by the media’s quest to scramble the truth at every turn. Shared intel on Iraq WMDs and a Congress who signs a bill that’s titled *Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq” somehow turns to “Bush lied” and Congress was only agreeing to use more pressure via diplomacy in headlines year after year.

Setbacks in Iraq when militants bomb Iraqis lining up to join their police and army (yet they still lined up) become Harry “the war is lost” Reid headlines for almost a year. Despite the Iraq surge being proposed as working, and *did* work, it became the surge never worked… it was the Sunni awakening. Never mind that the Sunni sheiks and elders could never have sustained a battle against well armed and financed jihad insurgents without the US having their back.

Tell me, has Bush ever had the opportunity to “present” anything and frame an issue without it being morphed and disfigured by the media? Perhaps he should have done what Obama does…. put his face in the news daily to smack down any dissent? Would you have been happier with Bush doing what Obama does… demonizing his opposition?

Obama packages nothing because he says nothing. Obama cites platitudes and BS feel good rhetoric, not “plans” of action. Bush and Cheney flat out told it like it was… but the media repackaged it for their own political purposes. Obama moralizes and lectures from behind his [bully] pulpit. Cheney/Bush spoke to the US audience as adults, laying out the facts.

Think on this for awhile… how many years does the media and Dem party have invested in the defeat of Iraq? How long have both been saying Iraq cannot be a free standing independent nation? How many times have they told us that we would never reach the point we are today with Iraq… withdrawing while Iraq stands… sometimes shakily… on it’s own? And that’s under Bush-Iraq SOFA… not Obama, BTW. Our withdrawal schedule was decided before Obama took the oath of office… but that will be more media/Obama “repackaging”… The SOFA never happened, and Obama’s living up to his promise to withdraw troops…

… at least for now.

Reading Brooks disgusts me. But then, Jake Tapper used to rile me as well. Now he’s one of the few who actually digs for the story. Who knows… maybe Brooks will again see the light of logic. But it sure ain’t in that op-ed. It merely shows he’s a sucker for the flashy, cheap veneer, and doesn’t care that it’s particle board construction below.

@Cary: Ellis Henican is an insane fool. You may think that is namecalling, I call it an accurate description.

Plenty of others have gone point by point through that article you mention both on this thread and Scott’s front page post on the subject.

I realize your first inclination on one these threads is to recite the shopworn liberal shibboleths which have been so ingrained into you by virtue of the fact that you live inside the liberal bubble of New York, or at least have done so for long periods.

I hope you will take the time to either listen to Cheney’s speech in it’s entirety or read the highlights I provided. He answers every question and takes on every canard the left has thrown at the Bush Administration on these issues.

The bottom line in all of this is simple: Cheney claims there are two memos which prove how effective enhanced interrogation was in saving lives. Obama and the Dems insist that Cheney is misrepresenting this. So, release the memos.

The fact that Obama has NOT released these memos while releasing other related memos should tell you something provided you have an open mind and can think for yourself free from the dictates of the left.

@Mike’s America:

I’m more than glad to take any of your advice, if I haven’t already, in regards to what you recommend I should read or listen to, when I have the time.

But I would, in return, ask that when you are tempted to accuse me of living in a “fantasy bubble” because of where I live, consider that it’s because of where I live that I’m aware of the realities within the discussion on this topic., and have a strong perspective on them. Thanks.

Sorry Cary.. my above comment should read to Fit. I managed to combine his link with your “I agree” comment.

Yeah… Ellis. What a bozo… Doesn’t know the difference between terrorists detained/arrested by law enforcement, and those detained/captured by our soldiers on the battle field. They just mesh together in his pea brain. But then, I can forgive Ellis his idiocy. He’s merely a member of the political whores that attempt to pass themselves off as “journalists”.

Then again, hearing my POTUS echo the same… the “law enforcement” theory, and “package” that crap off to the public as equivalent… is unforgiveable. I can live with no cure for stupid INRE Ellis. I can’t when it’s the CIC of the US military forces.

You may want to read up on that law enforcement vs detainees from the battlefield argument a bit more closely. They are not apples and apples, as Ellis suggests. After all, before they can arrest a terrorist on US soil, they already have some viable evidence… like laptops, emails, surveillance etc. Or else they try to get him temporarily on a material witness warrant (Padilla).

Arrest a guy shooting at you on the battlefield? Don’t think he’s got his laptop fired up with the Afghan/Iraq wifi while looking at our soldiers down his sights. You have to start from scratch, and build the case that will stand up in a federal court of law.

Ponder this fact… US law does not allow for investigative detention…. exactly what is needed with detainees captured on the battlefield. Pull them into this US federal system, and much evidence obtained can be thrown out.

@Cary: I lived in New York. When I say it’s a bubble in which reality is redefined I am speaking from experience. I also lived in Washington, DC… same story.

If I had not had the benefit of growing up in Ohio and now living in SC these many years I would be more inclined to swallow the shopworn shibboleths you give credence too.

Do me a favor and listen to the Cheney speech.

I have a host of other analysis which provides extensive counterpoint to the other sources you mention and will post links and excerpts of them later in the day.

@Mike’s America:

in the nearly twenty years that I’ve lived here, the city has changed dramatically. When exactly did you live here? I’m gonna bet it was even before I got here, probably around in the 70’s, when things were very very different everywhere than they are now, for many reasons.

@Mike’s America:

Alright, I reread your bio, and I was a decade off. Historically, things were not pretty here at all when you lived here, so I can certainly understand your feelings about NYC. I think you’d be pleasantly surprised at the difference if you were to visit now. It’s changed a lot for the better, and a lot of credit goes to our last two mayors, both repeatedly elected in spite of an R next to their names.

@Cary: New York may have changed for the better since I left. THANK YOU RUDY GIULIANI! But I seriously doubt the liberal bubble has disappeared and now all points of view are welcomed with open arms.

A good friend of mine still lives there. When we were at school together in Ohio he was very open and receptive to conservative ideas. The minute he moved to New York he adopted the prevailing liberal attitudes.

Surely you are not going to try and tell me that you are surrounded by conservatives?

It takes a very strong and independent person to buck the mindest of the vast majority around them and be different. It’s easier to go along to get along.

Again, I’m waiting for you to inform me that you are demonstrating your open-mindedness by listening to the entire Cheney speech.

Meanwhile, I’m working on posting a more extensive review of analysis of the two speeches.

Don’t fall too far behind.

@Mike’s America:

No Mike, I am indeed not going to tell you that I’m surrounded by Conservatives. I will tell you that there are more in my circle of friends than it would seem you would think.

Like I said, I shall take your advice, but you’ll have to wait for a response, I’m working 15 – 30 hours straight some nights between four jobs.

“It takes a very strong and independent person to buck the mindset of the vast majority around them and be different. It’s easier to go along to get along.”

I appreciate your understanding of what it’s like for me here on your site.

@Cary: I understand that the time and attention span of every reader is limited and it would seem yours is more limited than most.

But if you had spent half the time you have commenting by actually WATCHING the Cheney speech you might have a better understanding of where we are coming from.

You’ve directed readers to a number of links here and we have also rebutted those articles in posts and comments. So, I don’t think it’s too much of an imposition to ask you to watch the entire video or at least read the excerpts carefully.

P.S. From the treatment many of us receive when we visit left wing sites, I’d say you are much more welcome and treated respectfully here than we are in the opponents camp. By a country mile.

Mike,

I haven’t read every comment Cary’s every posted here; but of what I’ve read, of visiting his blog, I’d say Cary’s far more courteous and open-minded than you might give him credit for. He may stick to his views; but the very fact that he visits here at all is a good thing. Of course you’re right: it would help if he’d watch Cheney’s speech before commenting.

He should watch and listen to Cheney’s speech every bit as much as we should pay attention to Obama’s speech. But what sounds insightful to us may be inciteful to others; and I don’t expect that Cary’s views will change from Cheney’s speech; I don’t think he’ll be moved by it and impressed in the manner that we are by it.

I can empathize with him on the time factor. Listening to Cheney’s speech may not be high on his priority list of things to do, but then neither is reading and watching a great number of things I should make the time for, myself. We all lead busy lives.

@Wordsmith: ” Cary’s far more courteous and open-minded than you might give him credit for”

Au contraire. I give him PLENTY of credit for being willing to exhibit his views here.

As for listening to Obama. I admit it’s difficult for me to listen to his speeches. But countless times I have read and reread the transcripts of his addresses and those of his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

That’s why I offered Cary the option of reading selected excerpts from Cheney’s speech if he found his tone too difficult.

You see, I do empathize with him after all.