On CNN’s State of the Union program on Sunday (transcript), White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was questioned about the Obama Administration’s indeciviseness in Afghanistan. Attempting to change the subject, Rahm fell back on the standard “blame Bush” defense suggesting that Afghanistan was just another mess that they had to clean up.

You have literally got into a situation, is there another way you can do this? And the president is asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side, and the strategic side. What is the impact on the region? What can the Afghan government do or not do? Where are we on the police training? Who would be better doing the police training? Could that be something the Europeans do? Should we take the military side? Those are the questions that have not been asked. And before you commit troops, which is — not irreversible, but puts you down a certain path — before you make that decision, there’s a set of questions that have to have answers that have never been asked. And it’s clear after eight years of war, that’s basically starting from the beginning, and those questions never got asked.

And what I find interesting and just intriguing from this debate in Washington, is that a lot of people who all of a sudden say, this is now the epicenter of the war on terror, you must do this now, immediately approve what the general said — where, before, it never even got on the radar screen for them. That — everything was always about Iraq.

Amazing. As if no one will realize what a pack of lies that is.

Well, Dick Cheney realized it and in an address to the Center for Security Policy on Wednesday Cheney responded (transcript) (video of entire speech):

CHENEY: Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

Cheney also decried what he called a “drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan” in this speech which deserves to be read in it’s entirety. He covered the issue of Obama’s pullback from our Polish and Czech allies and missile defense as well as Iran, Iraq and terrorist interrogations.

His closing remarks offer a stinging rebuke to an inexperienced Obama from the man whose career highlights include not only Vice President, but Secretary of Defense and White House Chief of Staff:

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

This speech is yet another reminder from Dick Cheney about what it was like when adults were in charge!

Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.

One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an Obama strategist.

This year, AKPD and GMMB received $12 million in advertising business from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, that is seeking to build support for a health-care overhaul, said the coalition’s spokesman, Jeremy Van Ess.

~~~

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.

Ok, so let me get this straight. Axelrod’s former firm is receiving lots of money from “Healthy Economy Now” which is a coalition that includes PhRMA, AARP, SEIU and all the other players that are defining Obama’s health care Socialist plans AND Axelrod is still owed 2 million bucks from the firm.

Hmmmmm….ya think Axelrod had any hand in negotiating any little piece of the deals these groups made with his former firm…especially since the money his firm gets from these groups help to pay his severance package?

Remember the left went bats&%t crazy over Cheney’s Halliburton ties….this eclipses those ties.

But I’m guessing the left won’t go so crazy over THIS story. I wonder why?

More here.

The NYTimes:

Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with Al Qaeda, according to former administration officials.

Ooooh…..they “debated“…in 2002….Scary, scary stuff.

Some of the advisers to President George W. Bush, including Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that a president had the power to use the military on domestic soil to sweep up the terrorism suspects, who came to be known as the Lackawanna Six, and declare them enemy combatants.

Mr. Bush ultimately decided against the proposal to use military force.

~~~

~~~

Mr. Bush ended up ordering the F.B.I. to make the arrests in Lackawanna, near Buffalo, where the agency had been monitoring a group of Yemeni Americans with suspected Qaeda ties. The five men arrested there in September 2002, and a sixth arrested nearly simultaneously in Bahrain, pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges.

So what?

Like the reportage of the CIA plan that never became operational (imagine…plotting to assassinate those trying to kill Americans- what was Darth Cheney thinking?!), what’s the purpose of the story, here?

Rabid Cheney Derangement Syndrome.

Other related news items of the week:
9/11 Commission Leaders Push for More Action on Security

US citizen captured in Pakistan gives window into Al Qaeda’s world (Also, a post at American Power)

June 26, 2009

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta, Director
Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, D.C. 20505

Dear Director Panetta,

You recall, no doubt, that on May 15, 2009, you stated the following in a letter to CIA employees:

“Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and values.”

Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week. This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.

In light of your testimony, we ask that you publicly correct your statement of May 15, 2009.

Sincerely,

/s/

Anna G. Eshoo
Rush D. Holt
Alcee L. Hastings
John F. Tierny
Mike Thompson
Janice D. Schakowsky
Adam Smith

Panetta denies this:

CIA spokesman George Little told the Washington Independent late Wednesday that the claim that Panetta admitted his agency has misled Congress is “completely wrong.” He added, “Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement.”

But the funny thing in all this, and as Dafydd ab Hugh notes at Hot Air, the timing of the release of the letter smacks of an attempt to get the CIA to open its books to the whole of Congress:

[Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ, 100%), one of the seven signers] said that the release of the letter [from the seven] was timed to coincide today with the start of debate on an intelligence reauthorization bill. Among those issues up for debate is whether the number of lawmakers briefed on the CIA’s actions should be expanded.

The Republicans AND Obama both disagree with the move:

House Republicans oppose at least one provision in the intelligence authorization bill, and they have an unusual ally: the White House.

Obama’s aides have said they will recommend he veto the bill if it includes a Democratic-written provision requiring the president to notify the intelligence committees in their entirety about covert CIA activities.

And for good reason:

…the White House is concerned that briefing more lawmakers might compromise the most sensitive U.S. intelligence operations.

Might?

There is no might there. It WOULD compromise our intelligence and Dafydd gives us some examples:

When Sen. John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV, 94%) was the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (he is still a member but no longer chairman), he was one of the leaders in abusing his intelligence access to perpetuate the “Bush lied, people died” meme; he repeatedly stated that no prewar intelligence supported the idea that Saddam Hussein had ongoing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons programs — even though he himself had earlier stated the exact opposite, and despite a wealth of intelligence indicating exactly that, published in the committee’s own report on pre-war intelligence during Rockefeller tenure.

~~~

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, 100%), Russell Feingold (D-WI, 100%), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI, 90%), all current members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — Feinstein is the chairman — wrote a letter in July, 2007, demanding a “special prosecutor” be appointed to investigate then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for perjury… because of a trivial difference between Gonzales’ testimony and that of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller over the exact subject of a hospital-room discussion between Gonzales and former Attorney General John Ashcroft three years earlier.

Mueller, who was not present during the conversation itself, gained the impression afterwards that the discussion had been about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP); but Gonzales testified to Congress three years later that it was about a different but similar surveillance program. And for that, four Democratic senators wanted to send Gonzales to federal prison — the three mentioned above, plus Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY, 100%).

To complete the humiliation, the very next day — July 29th, 2007 — the New York Times published a story revealing that the subject was not, in fact, the TSP… it was the “data mining” surveillance program. So Gonzales had been telling the truth all along, and it was Mueller who misunderstood which program was under discussion.

~~~

Turning to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the current chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA, 82%), flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position; the quiz included such tricky, unfair questions as whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite. (Reyes’ answer: “They are probably both,” followed by “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”)

~~~

The next ranking Democrat on the committee is Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL, 100%)… a former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for accepting a $150,000 bribe, then perjuring himself when caught.

But you know what….lets throw out the excuse that all this “The CIA Lied People Died” was posturing to defend a Democrat provision. According to the loonies on the left this was all a cover to hide the evil Dick Cheney’s assassination program…I kid you not:

Another theory being bandied about concerns an “executive assassination ring” that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

“It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently,” Hersh said. “They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him.

And people wonder why we call these people moonbats.

Father’s Day arrived early for the Obamas:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — The first family was in the mood for something sweet _ something like vanilla custard, fudge and sprinkles.

On a muggy Saturday just before Father’s Day, President Barack Obama took Sasha, 8, and Malia, 10, to The Dairy Godmother, a frozen custard shop just outside Washington.

The president snacked on vanilla custard with hot fudge and toasted almonds in a cup, said the shop’s owner, Liz Davis.

Remember the criticism leveled at President Bush while New Orleans “burned”? Petty partisan politics is a bitch, ain’t it?

I actually don’t begrudge President Obama his vanilla custard with hot fudge (although “toasted almonds” might be carrying it a bit far).

But certainly the time for voting “present” and golden mean fence-straddling is over. Is he hearing “The Voice of Iran“? The world is looking to leadership. Take a firm stand, Mr. President; and Happy Father’s Day!

Related posts:
Iran Update

U.S. May Have to Apologize for Obama as He Picks Wrong Side in Iran

False AP report: Obama did NOT say that Iran must respect voters’ choice [Reader Post]

Someone Please Hack Obama’s Teleprompter With Bush Iran Speech

Hope for Iran?

Obama AWOL on Iran

The Iranian Election Fraud And How Obama Is Legitimizing It

Like other Democrats, Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently claimed that former Vice President Cheney is lying about proof that the waterboarding of the three worst terrorists, including the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, yielded information that saved American lives.

Obama could the settle the matter and release those memos with a stroke of the pen. The methods and techniques have already been fully disclosed by Obama’s prior release of similar classified memos. There is no valid national security reason these memos cannot be released.

Former Vice President Cheney has been pounding this case for months now to no avail. His very public faceoff with President Obama in May raised his visibility on the issue more.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney continued his push to get the information released in a wide ranging address at the National Press Club followed by a Q&A session with questions submitted by the audience. For those of you who are interested in following this important story closely, you can view the Cheney speech and Q&A at the National Press Club web site. You’ll notice the questions he was asked were much tougher than anything Obama has been asked on this same subject.

Cheney followed that speech witn an appearance with Greta Van Susteren’s show “On the Record.” His daughter Liz Cheney, who has become very popular as a qualified spokesperson on these issues in her own right (Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of State)also appeared with her father.

Part one of the Greta interview:

Part Two.

Dick Cheney’s unmatched experience on these issues makes his opinion all the more credible. That’s exactly why the left attacks him so viciously!

The big news story of last week was the contest of dueling speeches between President Obama and Vice President Cheney. Video and text highlights of Cheney’s speech are found here.

I’ve already pointed out how Obama hastily announced his speech at the National Archives standing in front of a copy of the U.S. Constitution at the same time as Cheney’s long planned address at the American Enterprise Institute. In the wake of Democrats in Congress refusing to grant Obama a blank check on the disposition of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Obama was clearly in a weak position. Made even weaker by the comparison to Dick Cheney’s steady, solid speech.

While the cheerleaders in the Obama “news” media were full of praise for Obama’s speech, there was plenty of counterpoint. Some highlights are posted below. If you read only one, read Rich Lowry’s:

President Above-It-All
By Rich Lowry
Real Clear PoliticsMay 22, 2009

Put Barack Obama in front of a teleprompter and one thing is certain – he’ll make himself appear the most reasonable person in the room.

Rhetorically, he is in the middle of any debate, perpetually surrounded by finger-pointing extremists who can’t get over their reflexive combativeness and ideological fixations to acknowledge his surpassing thoughtfulness and grace.

This is how Obama, whose position on abortion is indistinguishable from NARAL’s, can speechify on abortion at Notre Dame and come away sounding like a pitch-perfect centrist. It’s natural, then, that his speech at the National Archives on national security should superficially sound soothing, reasonable, and even a little put-upon (oh, what President Obama has to endure from all those finger-pointing extremists).

But beneath its surface, the speech – given heavy play in the press as an implicit debate with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke on the same topic at a different venue immediately afterward – revealed something else: a president who has great difficulty admitting error, who can’t discuss the position of his opponents without resorting to rank caricature, and who adopts an off-putting pose of above-it-all self-righteousness.Obama has reversed himself since becoming president on detaining terrorists indefinitely and on trying them before military commissions. Once upon a time, these policies were blots on our honor; now they are simple necessities. Between the primary and the general election, candidate Obama changed his mind and embraced Pres. George W. Bush’s terrorist-surveillance program. In recent weeks, he countermanded his own Justice Department’s decision not to contest a court decision that would have led to the release of photos of detainee abuse.

A less self-consciously grandiose figure might feel the need to reflect on the fact that his simplistic prior positions had not fully taken account of the difficulties inherent in fighting the War on Terror. Not Obama. On the commissions, he explicitly denied changing his view, instead trumpeting cosmetic changes he’s proposed as major reforms that will bring them in line “with the rule of law.”

For all his championing of nuance, Obama comes back to one source for every dilemma: Bush, as though without his predecessor every question about how a nation of laws protects itself from a lawless enemy would be easy. Under Bush, according to Obama, we set our “principles aside as luxuries we could no longer afford.” Even now, there are those – are you listening, Mr. Former V.P.? – “who think that America’s safety and success require us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building.” What a shoddy smear.
…
Excoriating Bush is good politics for Obama, which is what makes his repeated exhortations to look ahead so disingenuous. In his speech, he rued that “we have a return of the politicization of these issues.” In other words: Dick Cheney, please shut up. But when did the politicization of these issues end? Has the Left ever stopped braying about Bush’s war crimes?

Obama bracingly politicized these very issues on the stump, staking out unsustainably purist positions because they suited his momentary political interest. Now that’s he’s president, he wants the debate to end. He’s above the grubbily disputatious culture of partisans and journalists. And he’s above contradiction because, as ever, he occupies the middle ground, one “obscured by two opposite and absolutist” sides: those who recognize no terrorist threat and those who recognize no limits to executive power.

And there Obama stands, bravely holding his flanks against straw men on all sides.

Charles Krauthammer also weighs in:

Obama’s Deeds Vindicate Bush
By Charles Krauthammer
Real Clear Politics
May 22, 2009

Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: “The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) — and now Guantanamo.”

Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition — turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets — claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus — to detainees in Afghanistan’s Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.
…
The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That’s happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won’t have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

Jay Cost writing at the Real Clear Politics HorseRace Blog goes line by line through the Obama speech pointing out how the man who campaigned as a post-partisan ideal filled the National Archives speech with the same polarizing rhetoric and attack politics he used to complain about. It was bad enough when Obama made a subtle reference to those who disagree with him on enhanced interrogations as un-American. It got much worse:

OBAMA: And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I’ve heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country.

Accusing the opposition of engaging in scare tactics for political gain is a new low from a man who has done just that on numerous occasions.

Cost also points out how a large section of Obama’s speech was devoted to Obama’s favorite topic: talking about himself. Cost asks “How many more times in the next four years do we have to hear this kind of shopworn sermonizing?”

Fred Barnes goes back to Obama’s blame Bush theme:

Obama Blames Bush
And gets into a scrap with Cheney.
by Fred Barnes
The Weekly Standard
05/21/2009

While insisting “we need to focus on the future,” President Obama devoted much of his speech on terrorist detainees today to denouncing the policies of President Bush’s administration. He faulted everyone in Washington for “pointing fingers at one another,” yet pointed his own finger frequently, and critically, at the Bush administration. Obama said America’s problems won’t be solved “unless we solve them together”–in a divisive and partisan speech certain to alienate Republicans and conservatives.

If any president has gone to such lengths to attack his White House predecessor as Obama did today, I don’t recall it. True, presidents have blamed the prior administration for problems they inherit, but I can’t think of a president who did so as aggressively and with such moral preening as Obama.

There was a reason for this. His speech was a dodge because when it came to the issue at hand–what to do with the 240 remaining terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo–he had no answer at all. Instead, the best he could do was elaborate on the five categories in which his administration has pigeonholed the detainees.
…
Obama attacked the Bush administration for having set up the prison at Guantanamo in the first place to house terrorists seized after 9/11. But he didn’t present an alternative. He didn’t say what he would have done with those prisoners had he been president at the time.

Why give the speech then? Obama wanted to counter criticism for having decided to shutter the prison before figuring out what to do with the prisoners. And his tack was simple: blame everything on the Bush administration and dwell on the tough interrogation tactics the administration used on captured terrorists, tactics Obama said amounted to torture. He described his role as “clean[ing] up the mess” left by Bush.

Not only that, Obama blamed the Bush administration for violating the Constitution, for setting American “principles” aside as “luxuries we couldn’t afford,” and for failing “to use our values as a compass.” And that was only for starters.

The Bush war on terrorism “likely created more terrorists around the world that it ever detained,” he said. He cited no authority for that claim.

And this from Michael Goodwin:

Obama gets schooled on terror: Cheney bests him in speech duel — by sticking to the facts
By Michael Goodwin
New York Daily News
Sunday, May 24th 2009

It was a tale of two speeches. One was clear, direct and powerful. Barack Obama gave the other speech.

It would have been heresy to write those words any other time, so commanding has President Obama been with the spoken word. But the real Mission Impossible was to imagine that wheezy old Dick Cheney would be the speaker to best Obama.

Yet that happened last week, and I predict it won’t be a fluke. From here on out, results will increasingly trump the sensation of Obama’s high-toned lectures every time.

Especially if they are as dreary as last Thursday’s, which was so disingenuous and self-reverential as to be one of the low moments of his presidency. Besides not being able to clearly lay out his plan for Guantanamo detainees, Obama never mentioned what will happen to others we capture in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we will take no more prisoners?

Meanwhile, the occasion showed that Cheney, the darkest of dark horses, is emerging as a fact checker in exile. With Democrats holding all Washington power, the ex-veep’s willingness to challenge Obama’s narrative of the war on terror is a poor substitute for an institutional check-and-balance, but it’s all we have.

In that sense, Cheney’s ability to outduel Obama could mark a turning point in the debate on this and other critical issues. His TKO over the President recalls the three most important things in real estate: Location, location, location.

The key to Cheney’s powerful performance: Facts, facts, facts.
…
After conceding terrorism presents unique challenges, Obama argued “the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass.”

Whoa Nellie – are the terrorists going to hit us again or not? That’s what people want to know, not whether a bunch of lawyers think we’re being too tough on them.

Unfortunately, Obama was less than reassuring, saying: “Neither I nor anyone else standing here today can say that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American lives.”

That’s a fact, of course, but it’s also a fact that he’s been warned his policies will make it more likely we will be hit again.

It’s a warning he dismisses at America’s peril.

Finally, Toby Harnden, the U.S. editor of the British newspaper, The Telegraph, attended the Cheney speech and counted “10 punches Dick Cheney landed on Barack Obama’s jaw.” Of the ten, #3 strikes at the heart of the matter:

3. “By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed as well that there was much agonizing over this decision. Yet somehow, when the soul searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth.”

The release of the documents was a nakedly political move by Obama and Cheney called him on it. This passage from Obama’s speech today came across as completely disingenuous: “I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn’t release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales — although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods.”

The Obama Administration continues to block release of the memos which Vice President Cheney asserts show how enhanced interrogations saved lives. If Cheney is wrong, why not release the memos and prove it?

Meanwhile, Obama gave another speech on Friday!

Obama Repeats the Big Lie at Naval Academy Graduation

Upholding values will shield US from terror: Obama
Breitbart.com
May 22

Obama used the backdrop of the US Naval Academy graduation ceremony to argue that founding US ideals must guide the future battle against terrorism, a day after trying to quell raging debate over Guantanamo Bay in a major speech.

“We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to — not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe,” Obama told 30,000 graduating navy cadets and family members.

“When America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops.”

Obama has often suggested, without offering a shred of evidence, that places like the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay was a recruiting tool for terrorists. Close Gitmo he says and we will be safer.

Has anyone bothered to point out to him that ALL of the major terrorist attacks against this country occurred BEFORE Guantanamo Bay was open and all but the September 11th attacks occurred before the Bush Administration took office?

Once again, Obama’s speech at Annapolis is yet another example of how the big lie gets told over and over and is accepted as fact by those who clearly don’t dig too deeply for the truth!

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s defense Thursday of the Bush administration’s policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that’s considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were “legal” and produced information that “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.”

[NOTE President Bush’s Sept 6, 2006 address on this topic listed specific examples of this. Also, recently declassified CIA documents show that Congress was briefed on the “actionable intelligence” that the EIT program yielded. A partial list of thwarted attacks is available here.]

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a “deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country.”

In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information “was valuable in some instances” but that “there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. …”

[NOTE: The Admiral doesn’t make clear if by “other means” he means other enhanced interrogation techniques or something more extreme. However, the CIA documents that President Obama declassified for political purposes clearly show that the use of EITs was only done AFTER traditional interrogation methods had been used, AFTER multiple levels of higher authority had approved their use, and a clear requirement for using the EITs instead of traditional interrogation methods had to be demonstrated before they were authorized.]

“…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.”

[NOTE: The admiral and writers miss the point that it’s not JUST the secret techniques that damaged American image abroad-as the revelation of most secret programs would do, but that the illegal exposure of the EIT program by the economically struggling New York Times (whether for financial or political reasons) is what caused the damage. Had the program remained as secret as other offensive covert CIA programs…there would have likely been no damage at all. In fact, the program didn’t include any sort of public relations staff or plan at all.]

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general’s investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

[NOTE: the CIA’s Inspector General investigation only looked at CIA involvement regarding the EIT program. It did not look at how intelligence gained from EITs was used by American leaders and the 16 other intelligence agencies. However, people who did have that knowledge-like 4 CIA Directors, Vice President Cheney, President Bush, and more-have all said that the intelligence gathered by the CIA led to attacks being thwarted.]

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn’t think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

[NOTE: Vanity Fair? Gosh, I wonder what he “revealed” to Rolling Stone, GQ, and TEEN Magazine?! Is this the same FBI Director Mueller who told a concerned President Bush in August 2001 that the FBI had the situation in control, was conducting 70+ investigations, had the 20th hijacker in custody w the entire 911 plot on his laptop (also in Mueller's custody), and still the 911 attacks occurred? One wonders if the 911 plot could have been thwarted had EIT's been used on Zacarias Moussoui, or even if they'd have had the political courage to open his laptop despite the ominous presence of the ACLU's shadow protecting the right to privacy on that laptop?]

LINK TO BUSH’S SEPT 6.2006 SPEECH DETAILING HOW IT PREVENTED ATTACKS

_ Cheney said that President Barack Obama’s decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was “flatly contrary” to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.

However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, “strongly supported” Obama’s decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that “we do not need these techniques to keep America safe.”

_ 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.

[NOTE: Let the leftist talking points begin! VP Cheney is correct that the US devastated Al Queda in 2001 and 2002 as well as later covertly. Writers of this article, however, can’t seem to pick up a calendar and realize that Al Queda largely escaped Afghanistan in December 2001, and was almost completely driven from the country in the first 3 months of 2002. When there were just remnants of Al Queda in Afghanistan, the US handed over most of the responsibility for the war there to our NATO allies, and left mopping up forces in country with the belief that relying on allies was a good idea. Then there was a 4-5 month period in 2002 when the US began to update its military strategies for Iraq, and in September 2002 (6 months after the final major battle with Al Queda in Afghanistan), the US began its military/political/diplomatic runup to war in Iraq. Partisan political opponents of the Iraq invasion called this September 2002-March 2003, 6-month period the “Rush to war,” but sometimes that term also encompasses the additional, previous 6-months during which Al Queda fled to Pakistan and the war in Afghanistan dwindled to a mopping-up operation. Only ONE U.S. military unit was shifted from Afghanistan to the invasion of Iraq (the 5th Special Operations Unit), and that unit specialized in using indigenous forces to overthrow a country covertly and with the support of air power rather than full out invasion. No other units were diverted from fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan (which had already fled Afghanistan) to the invasion of Iraq. These are chronological, historical facts that the writers of the article are either ignorant of realizing or chose to deliberately ignore for purposes of misleading. Short version: someone needs a calendar]

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.

[NOTE: Eight years after driving Al Queda from Afghanistan, they are still not back in anywhere near the same size in forces, and remain in Pakistan-not Afghanistan. Sending troops to fight Al Queda in a country that they are not largely in…is a mistake, and while the writers use correct facts about a Taliban offensive and the numbers of US forces in Afghanistan eight years after driving out Al Queda, these facts are distractions from the reality that the fight against Al Queda in Afghanistan never resurged to post April 2002 levels. The fight against Al Queda’s allies, the Taliban has resurged, and relying on America’s allies has proven to be folly at best which is why the offensive has happened, and why US forces have been sent back in en masse.]

_ 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.”

[NOTE: Notice how the writers take Cheney’s core point-that Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are not connected-and distract from it by focusing on three words used to describe Abu Ghraib. The point remains unchallenged: the EIT program at Gitmo which is the subject of much debate and discussion these days is not an episode in history identical to the criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib.]

_ 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.

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.

[NOTE: The writers are completely incorrect in their claim, and in their poor writing, that Cheney somehow said only 1 person was subjected to waterboarding. He specifically said there were three. He just didn’t give their names, hair color, weight, or grandmothers’ maiden names all of which would have been as relevant as their names to his point: that only 3 people were waterboarded.]

_ 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.

[NOTE: One of the problems with writing under the influence of emotion and a lack of historical hindsight is that what pops up on the screen can sometimes be an oxymoron rather than a clear point. Here the writers are trying to say that Cheney claimed “accurate intelligence” is important, but that he somehow didn’t rely on “accurate intelligence” for the 2003 war. Does this mean that having “accurate intelligence” is not important? Are they trying to say that Cheney is correct, and having “accurate intelligence” IS important? If the first, then they’re ignoring the fact that 6yrs after the invasion of Iraq Cheney thinks it is important, and he is correct. If they’re trying to make the second point (that “accurate intelligence” is not important, then they’re effectively saying that the intelligence used for the invasion of Iraq was enough. Either way, they present an oxymoronic argument that ignores the two greatest lessons of both the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq: 1) America’s intelligence services were woefully inadequate from 1998-2007…at least, and 2) Of course having “accurate intelligence” is important, but it’s been almost a decade since American intelligence services were brought back up to speed and strength after the peace dividend cuts of 1998, and historical flashpoints and the actions of America’s enemies do not wait for “accurate intelligence”; they strike when its weakest. “Accurate intelligence” is important, but NEVER accurate enough, and rarely in sufficient qualities.]

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.

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

[NOTE: al Libi was alive in US custody, and the Bush/Obama policy of handing over unsavory characters to their home countries didn't work out too well for him.]

_ 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.

[NOTE: President Obama had no problem releasing politically suggestive documents regarding the EIT program despite the fact that they too are subject of the exact same lawsuits as the documents VP Cheney, as well as both Democrats and Republicans, want to see released. The same executive order cited by the writers allows President Obama to release the Cheney documents, but the writers chose not to let the readers believe there’s duplicity on the part of the Obama Administration, themselves, or that politics are being played with national security.]

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

[NOTE: This is completely not true, and anyone who actually watched Vice President Cheney and/or read the text of his speech knows it. The writers know it, and that’s why the word “ONLY” is not included in the quote. It’s not there because he didn’t say “ONLY.” That false claim is put forth by the writers-writers who follow up their false quote by arguing against their own false quote that it wasn’t “only ruthless enemies of this country.” What the writers do not dispute (conveniently) is that “ruthless enemies of this country” were held at Gitmo exactly as Vice President described.]

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.

[NOTE: This has nothing to do with what Vice President Cheney said. He never said there were no innocent detainees, and the writers acknowledge that by not putting the word “ONLY” in the quote from VP Cheney.]

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.

[NOTE: This has nothing to do with what Vice President Cheney said. He never said there were no innocent detainees, and the writers acknowledge that by not putting the word “ONLY” in the quote from VP Cheney.]

_ 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.

[NOTE: This is incorrect. The Vice President opposed the ignorant choice to close Gitmo before having a plan to close it.]

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.”

_ 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.”

[NOTE: This claim that Saddam Hussein had known ties to Mideast terrorists was never disputed by any Director of the CIA, by President Clinton, by President Bush Sr., or by the FBI. In fact, part of the 1998 Department of Justice indictment of Osama Bin Laden specifically cites his ties to the Saddam Hussein regime.]

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.

[NOTE: This is completely false. No intelligence leader, no intelligence publication, and no independent commission has ever said that the issue of regime ties to the Al Queda network and its affiliates (using the Obama nomenclature) has ever been fully investigated, or concluded. In fact, quite the opposite is true: all bi-partisan and/or independent investigations have called for more investigation into the matter as initial intelligence was almost non-existent and post-invasion intelligence shows a trend of demonstrating more and more ties rather than fewer.]

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.”

[NOTE: The writers here are actually suggesting that the State Department’s intelligence assessment (or any intelligence assessment before 911) was accurate? After the 911 attacks, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees formed a bi-partisan investigation into how and why the attacks succeeded. Among the shocking revelations was the fact that from 1998-9/11/01 there was an average of 4-40 people in the entire 16 American intelligence agencies watching the entire Al Queda network. Later, a Senate Intelligence Committee, bi-partisan investigation pointed out in 2004 that between 12/98 and 12/03 (FIVE YEARS!) there was not a single human intelligence asset inside all of Iraq. Yet, these same writers who danced with the idea of how important “accurate intelligence” is earlier in their article want to rely on a report that formed a conclusion about a 2 entities where one had not a single human intelligence asset, and the other had a whopping four people watching the entire network. Their focus on the need for “accurate intelligence” is clearly subjective to whatever point they’re trying to make rather than consistent.]

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.

[NOTE: This is not true. If it were, the writers would have included the entire quote. In almost every case, those who believe that the threat of Saddam’s regime working with Al Queda was non-existent are basing those beliefs on at least one of three things:

1) Hope. The thought of a rogue regime with WMD is a nightmare that many cannot imagine.

2) Denial. Whether it was the 1998 Clinton impeachment, the 2000 election, the 911 attacks, or the invasion of Iraq, partisan divide has become engrained in many Americans over the last 11 yrs. For those who follow the news, politics, and history it is particularly acute. As such, skepticism reigns. If someone tends to doubt Democrats, then anything said by a Democratic leader is automatically so doubtful for many people that it is assumed to be either a lie or at least not true. The same is conversely true for people who have followed those dividing events closely and view anything said by a Republican as intrinsically false, misleading, a lie, or a cover-up of some sorts.

3) Half truths come from half quotes. As we’ve seen throughout this oped article, relying on partial quotes is extremely irresponsible sometimes. It’s mostly irresponsible when a person deliberately ignores an important caveat. If there is a sign that says, “No Turn On Red During Weekday Hours 5-7pm,” and the driver ignores the second part…then they’re likely to cause an accident or get fined. When a quote says, “There is no evidence of a tie between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein…” it’s important to read the rest of the quote and not dismiss it because it fits one’s political agenda or conflicts with a mental fear.

If the FULL QUOTE/FULL TRUTH is, “There is no evidence of a tie between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because we had no one watching either Iraq or Al Queda for 4yrs, and more intelligence needs to be collected before a conclusion can be reached.” Then ignoring the second half of the quote, ignoring the whole truth in favor of a false, half truth is wrong.

The only thing more wrong is marketing that half truth as though it were fact. Take for example the very last part of this article-the part about the investigation into the 600,000 captured documents from Saddam’s regime. Did the writers mention that only about 1/5 of those documents had been examined? Did they mention that the very same report cited multiple, confirmed, documented, operational ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda network groups/affiliates? No. Why would they leave that out and present a false impression that the issue had been fully investigated, fully concluded, and is closed?]

More on ties between Saddam’s regime and (as Pres. Obama likes to say….) “the Al Queda terrorist network and its affiliates.”

Now, over the last several weeks, we have seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. I understand that these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should. We are confronting some of the most complicated questions that a democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending our time re-litigating the policies of the last eight years. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them together as Americans.

Gee, so…why’d President Obama hold his speech today, at that hour? Because he knew that Vice President Cheney was going to defend his name, his honor, his legacy, and his innocence, and he wanted to pre-emptively attack those same things. He wanted to divide and distract the nation on a day when awful economic numbers came out (higher unemployment, higher unemployment rate, longer unemployment expected, unemployment expected to rise, new home sales down, existing home sales down, GDP lower than expected, stimulus doing nothing, and….my favorite, number of homeowner families helped by Obama/Dem homeowner rescue package over past 5months:1 per CNN).

Somehow, I’m skeptical of calls for unity that come in a political attack speech. Call me crazy.

President Obama delivered a hastily scheduled speech on national security this morning at the exact time that former Vice President Cheney had long planned a similar address. Obama wrapped himself in the aura of the National Archives standing in front of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence and delivered yet another tiresome blame America, blame Bush justification for his own weakness.

For now, I’ll cite just these few paragraphs from Obama’s speech:

OBAMA: After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era – that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach – one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

What absolute rubbish! Did the American people vote to release terrorists into the United States? Did we vote to close Guantanamo? Did we vote so that our elected officials, who were too busy to read the bills they were voting on, could instead spend thousands of hours wailing about the waterboarding of JUST THREE TERRORISTS?

I could go on and on, but instead I’ll let former Vice President Cheney respond by posting his remarks in their entirety. Emphasis on particular sections added by me:

As prepared for delivery
Vice President Cheney
Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute
Thursday, May 21, 2009

Thank you all very much, and Arthur, thank you for that introduction. It’s good to be back at AEI, where we have many friends. Lynne is one of your longtime scholars, and I’m looking forward to spending more time here myself as a returning trustee. What happened was, they were looking for a new member of the board of trustees, and they asked me to head up the search committee.

I first came to AEI after serving at the Pentagon, and departed only after a very interesting job offer came along. I had no expectation of returning to public life, but my career worked out a little differently. Those eight years as vice president were quite a journey, and during a time of big events and great decisions, I don’t think I missed much.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security. I focused on those challenges day to day, mostly free from the usual political distractions. I had the advantage of being a vice president content with the responsibilities I had, and going about my work with no higher ambition. Today, I’m an even freer man. Your kind invitation brings me here as a private citizen – a career in politics behind me, no elections to win or lose, and no favor to seek.

The responsibilities we carried belong to others now. And though I’m not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. We understand the complexities of national security decisions. We understand the pressures that confront a president and his advisers. Above all, we know what is at stake. And though administrations and policies have changed, the stakes for America have not changed.

Right now there is considerable debate in this city about the measures our administration took to defend the American people. Today I want to set forth the strategic thinking behind our policies. I do so as one who was there every day of the Bush Administration –who supported the policies when they were made, and without hesitation would do so again in the same circumstances.

When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support. And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer. The point is not to look backward. Now and for years to come, a lot rides on our President’s understanding of the security policies that preceded him. And whatever choices he makes concerning the defense of this country, those choices should not be based on slogans and campaign rhetoric, but on a truthful telling of history.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad. In 1993, they bombed the World Trade Center, hoping to bring down the towers with a blast from below. The attacks continued in 1995, with the bombing of U.S. facilities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the killing of servicemen at Khobar Towers in 1996; the attack on our embassies in East Africa in 1998; the murder of American sailors on the USS Cole in 2000; and then the hijackings of 9/11, and all the grief and loss we suffered on that day.

Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.

That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat – what the Congress called “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We’d just been hit by a foreign enemy – leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation []never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we’re left to draw one of two conclusions – and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event – coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president’s party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they’re after would be heard before a so-called “Truth Commission.” Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense, and political opponents as criminals. It’s hard to imagine a worse precedent, filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse, than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessors.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security, and what it requires. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see – including the enemy – let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you’ve heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, 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. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America’s cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. 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.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Behind the overwrought reaction to enhanced interrogations is a broader misconception about the threats that still face our country. You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy. Apparently using the term “war” where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we’re advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, “Overseas contingency operations.” In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, “man-made disaster” – never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, “enemy combatants,” as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress. The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn’t change what they are – or what they would do if we let them loose.

On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Their idea now, as stated by Attorney General Holder and others, is apparently to bring some of these hardened terrorists into the United States. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental.

The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security. Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered low-risk were released a long time ago. And among these, it turns out that many were treated too leniently, because they cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come.

In the category of euphemism, the prizewinning entry would be a recent editorial in a familiar newspaper that referred to terrorists we’ve captured as, quote, “abducted.” Here we have ruthless enemies of this country, stopped in their tracks by brave operatives in the service of America, and a major editorial page makes them sound like they were kidnap victims, picked up at random on their way to the movies.

It’s one thing to adopt the euphemisms that suggest we’re no longer engaged in a war. These are just words, and in the end it’s the policies that matter most. You don’t want to call them enemy combatants? Fine. Call them what you want – just don’t bring them into the United States. Tired of calling it a war? Use any term you prefer. Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11.

Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it 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 much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

What is equally certain is this: The broad-based strategy set in motion by President Bush obviously had nothing to do with causing the events of 9/11. But the serious way we dealt with terrorists from then on, and all the intelligence we gathered in that time, had everything to do with preventing another 9/11 on our watch. The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.

Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it’ll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs – on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history – not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward – the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of “hubris” – my mind always goes back to that moment.

To put things in perspective, suppose that on the evening of 9/11, President Bush and I had promised that for as long as we held office – which was to be another 2,689 days – there would never be another terrorist attack inside this country. Talk about hubris – it would have seemed a rash and irresponsible thing to say. People would have doubted that we even understood the enormity of what had just happened. Everyone had a very bad feeling about all of this, and felt certain that the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and Shanksville were only the beginning of the violence.

Of course, we made no such promise. Instead, we promised an all-out effort to protect this country. We said we would marshal all elements of our nation’s power to fight this war and to win it. We said we would never forget what had happened on 9/11, even if the day came when many others did forget. We spoke of a war that would “include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success.” We followed through on all of this, and we stayed true to our word.

To the very end of our administration, we kept al-Qaeda terrorists busy with other problems. We focused on getting their secrets, instead of sharing ours with them. And on our watch, they never hit this country again. After the most lethal and devastating terrorist attack ever, seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.

Along the way there were some hard calls. No decision of national security was ever made lightly, and certainly never made in haste. As in all warfare, there have been costs – none higher than the sacrifices of those killed and wounded in our country’s service. And even the most decisive victories can never take away the sorrow of losing so many of our own – all those innocent victims of 9/11, and the heroic souls who died trying to save them.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Like so many others who serve America, they are not the kind to insist on a thank-you. But I will always be grateful to each one of them, and proud to have served with them for a time in the same cause. They, and so many others, have given honorable service to our country through all the difficulties and all the dangers. I will always admire them and wish them well. And I am confident that this nation will never take their work, their dedication, or their achievements, for granted.

Thank you very much.

Cheney’s Poll Numbers Rising

So many on the left and even some in the GOP wish Dick Cheney would just shut up. As the speech above illustrates it is imperative that he continue to provide his sober, wise judgement on these critical issues that truly effect the life and death of Americans.

It’s heartening to see that despite the hate campaign which was launched against him years ago and continues unabated to this day Americans have a more favorable opinion of him:

CNN Poll: Favorable opinion of Dick Cheney on the rise
From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
May 21, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) — As Dick Cheney prepares to give a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise.
…
Thirty-seven percent say they have a favorable opinion of Cheney, up eight points from January when he left office.

In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.

Former Vice President Cheney speaks for millions of Americans who understand the complexity and seriousness of national security issues demand more than a campaign mode of thinking!

His speech is also a perfect reminder of what it was like when adults were still in charge at the White House!

Question: How do you make sure the major “news” media won’t cover a hard hitting national security speech by former Vice President Cheney?

Answer: Send President Obama to the National Archives and have him stand in front of the Declaration of Independence and deliver a speech on the same topic at approximately the same time.

The Cheney speech titled ““Keeping America Safe: An Address by Dick Cheney” has been scheduled for some time. Cheney’s speech starts at 10:45 AM at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)and a question and answer session will follow.

No word on the AEI web site about a live video link but I’ll check later to see if they post the video.

Who would you rather listen to on the topic of national security? A man who has been in office for only a few months with no prior experience or interest in the national security field or a man who was Secretary of Defense then Vice President for eight years during one of the most challenging periods in American history?

A week ago, last Tuesday, I happened to catch Michael Medved in a debate with guest Ruth Rosen. Here are her credentials:

Historian and journalist Ruth Rosen, a former columnist for the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, and is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute. A new edition of her most recent book, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America (Penguin, 2001), will be published with an updated epilogue in 2007.

She wrote the following article, which Medved took her to task on. Actually, he raked her over the coals and made her look intellectually foolish. Well…at least she was polite. You can listen to his interview here. Thank goodness for Townhall.com…. I miss a lot of programs and it is nice to be able to re-listen to some of the best in talk radio. I implore people to go listen to the interview. Aside from him getting a bit excitable (Rosen took his exasperation as his shouting at her- he was not; I think she was just looking for an easy exit), it shows Medved at his best; and a university professor who clearly wrote an influential piece on a matter in which she is pathetically ill-informed.

Published on Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Oliver Stone, 9/11, and the Big Lie
by Ruth Rosen

When World Trade Center ended, I left the theater tense, my muscles aching. The superb directing and acting, coupled with still hardly imaginable scenes of death and destruction, had sent painful muscle spasms up my back, evoked tears, and left me, yet again, with searing and indelible images of that hellish morning.

I felt disoriented in the bright sunlight of a Northern Californian afternoon. As my mind regained its critical faculties, however, another kind of shock set in. I suddenly realized that Oliver Stone’s movie reinforces the Big Lie — endlessly repeated by Dick Cheney, echoed and amplified by the right-wing media — that 9/11 was somehow linked to Iraq or supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Ok…now this is one of those “big lies” that the mainstream media pushes….kind of like the 16 words in the President’s State of the Union Address. I have never been led to believe that Iraq/Saddam attacked us on 9/11 by the Bush Administration. And yet, this is what many of the critics keep telling us.

With a subtle touch, Stone shows us people all over the planet horrified by television images of the airplanes crashing into the towers. He reminds us that the people of the world expressed an outpouring of sympathy (since been squandered by the Bush administration).

Hmm….I also recall the cheering in the streets and the Osama T-shirts; and people who were sympathetic on the surface, but underneath, snickering that America finally received a “bloodied nose” in experiencing some of the harsh violence that happens in other parts of the world. Michael Medved also recently wrote a column on “Anti-Americanism”, which has been around long before the Bush Administration took office, and touches upon the envy felt by others in the world.

Meanwhile, Stone introduces us to one ex-Marine who feels called by God to help rescue those buried alive. He gets his hair cut short, puts on his old uniform, and with all the authority of a former staff sergeant, does what he knows best — uses his military skills to save people’s lives. Determined and angry, he insists that we must avenge this horrendous attack.

We also watch a group of Wisconsin policemen viewing the terrorist attacks on television. One screams out, “The bastards!” Stone, in other words, captures the desire for revenge already in the air.

And yet, in none of these profoundly moving scenes is there even a mention of who might have committed this atrocity. Neither the name al-Qaeda, nor Osama Bin Laden, is so much as whispered.

You might say, “But everyone knows it was al-Qaeda.”

The problem here, is that Rosen jumps ahead of herself to her own agenda and pet peeve. The movie is recreating history unfolding, and at the point in time, after the 2nd plane hit, we knew we were under attack, and we wanted to pay back those responsible for it.

And you’d be right, but do most Americans really know just who those terrorists were or that they had no connection to Iraq — that not a single one of them even came from that country?

Okay…15 out of the 19 villains on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. What’s her point? Abdul Rahman Yasin, involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, is Iraqi. Al Qaeda operatives come from many nationalities, training outside of their native countries.

It doesn’t sound very important until you realize that various polls over the last five years have reported from 20% to 50% of Americans still believe Iraqis were on those planes. (They were not.) As of early 2005, according to a Harris poll, 47% of Americans were convinced that Saddam Hussein actually helped plan the attack and supported the hijackers. And in February, 2006, according to a unique Zogby poll of American troops serving in Iraq, “85% said the U.S. mission is mainly ‘to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks’; 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was ‘to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.’”

Many of these pollings are bogus; and Zogby has become rather partisan in recent times (remember his polling during Election 2004?)- something that Michael Medved also points out. I’m too lazy to dig up old links; but remember: Google is your best friend (well….sorta).

The Big Lie, first coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf,was made famous by Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the Third Reich. The idea was simple enough: Tell a whopper (the larger the better) often enough and most people will come to accept it as the truth.

Uh yeah…kinda like how the Left has repeated the mantra-phrase “Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11″ so often enough, that it’s misled the general public into the false belief that this Administration has ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. This is one of those insidious lies.

During World War II, the predecessor of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services, described how the Germans used the Big Lie: “[They] never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

Yup. That pretty well sums up the liberal lamestream and agenda-driven, Bush-hating propagandistic media. Whatever happens in the world- must be Bush’s fault.

This is, in fact, just what the Bush administration has been doing ever since 9/11. As a result, in 2005, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that 56% of Americans still thought Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction “shortly before the war,” and 60% still believed Iraq had provided “direct support” to al-Qaeda prior to the war.

I see part of the problem as being the mainstream media misreporting and misrepresenting what the Bush Administration’s statements and positions are. The other part may be that those being polled are actually a bit better informed than the dinosaur media and liberal professors who read from it. Intellectuals such as Professor Rosen have never heard of such things as the “Saddam documents“, or read Stephen Hayes pieces, to know that some of us are several steps ahead of them.

In June 2006, Fox News ran a story once again dramatizing the supposed links between 9/11 and Iraq. And, as recently as July, 2006, a Harris poll found that 64% of those polled “say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda.”

*Yawn*

The Bush administration’s Big Lie has worked very well. Dick Cheney, the point man on this particular lie, has repeated it year after year. In a similar way, George Bush has repeatedly explained his 2003 invasion of Iraq, which had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, by insisting that we must fight terrorists in that country so that we don’t have to fight them here. (It turned out to be something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.)

One of the things that Michael Medved did on-air, was corner Rosen to cite him specific examples rather than vague references and innuendos. She could not. She knew she was coming on a right-wing talk show to defend her article, and she did not have one specific example of where Vice President Cheney mispoke or told a lie. A caller brought up Cheney appearances on Meet the Press; often cited by those on the Left. What was brilliant, was during the commercial breaks, Medved dug up transcripts of the interviews Cheney gave in 2001 and 2003 with Tim Russert, and just like President Bush’s 2003 SotU Address, what was actually said, and what the Bush-haters want to believe was said, are two different things.

What is so remarkably insidious, is the NYTimes will misrepresent what President Bush said; then others will pick up on it; and pretty soon a whole mythology is developed around something that never took place; but everyone believes it did, because they all end up citing from each other, never examining the actual source. The perception, however far from the truth, becomes “Bush lied”. Or, for those on the Left who do examine and probe deeper, the excuse becomes, “It’s cleverly worded, so as to cover themselves.” Why can’t they just flat-out admit, that something alleged to have been said, never was said?

Neither these, nor so many other administration statements had a shred of truth to them.

“not a shred” is pretty bold and sweeping. It would be nice to be given specific citations- and not “gotcha” moments of mistatements, but real, honest-to-goodness deliberate bold-faced lies!

Even the President, who repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the September 11th attacks, admitted on September 18, 2003 that there was no evidence the deposed Iraqi dictator had had a hand in them.

One of the most frustrating things when arguing with those on the Left of this argument, is that so many of them can’t seem to distinguish the difference between “Saddam and 9/11= no direct causal link” and “Iraq and al Qaeda= evidence of links”. To what degree of operational links is not fully known. But believing there are links between al Qaeda and Iraq does not mean the same thing as Saddam masterminded or had a hand in bringing about 9/11. If liberals are such airheads as to confuse and conflate the two, that’s their problem. I just don’t get what is so hard to understand. I have never once felt misled about this war and the several cases made for going to war- which was more than just the w(s)md (weapons of mass destruction).

One of the dishonest arguments from some on the Left who believed along with the many of us that Saddam had wmd capabilities; and yet were still strongly against The War. And now they use the argument “no wmds” as a justification that they were right in opposing the war. That’s dishonest since even if the mass stockpiles were there and Saddam unleashed chemical and biological weapons on our troops during the War, these peace fascists still would not have endorsed justification for war.

But that didn’t stopped the Vice President from endlessly repeating the Big Lie that justifies this country’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Again, Medved handled this beautifully by going through the transcripts. Here is an excerpt of what he wrote on his blog at Townhall.com…:

I played her an excerpt of the President’s Monday press conference in which he specifically, unequivocally acknowledged that Sadam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks so she quickly retreated to claiming that it was Cheney, not Bush, who promoted this “Big Lie” (which she explicitly compared to the techniques of Goebbels and Hitler). Amazingly, this “distinguished academic” provided not a single citation — not one! — for her insistence that Cheney “often” misled people about Iraq’s involvement in attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A caller, hoping to rescue Professor Rosen, mentioned a 2005 appearance by Cheney on “Meet the Press.” While the Vice President certainly discussed Iraq’s long-standing support for terrorism, and many contacts with Al Qaeda (also cited by the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission) he never came close to claiming Saddam’s direct involvement in 9/11— saying twice, “We just don’t know.”

I’m cutting down some of the other whiny drivel in Ruthen’s article. Here’s the conclusion:

That evening, I wrote the words that should have appeared in the postscript: “Government officials later confirmed that the organization which plotted the destruction of the World Trade Center was al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Arabian, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian. Nineteen men executed the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Fifteen of them came from Saudi Arabia; the remaining four from Egypt, The United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon. None of them came from Iraq.”

What happened to Oliver Stone, the filmmaker who gave us Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, Wall Street, and Nixon? Despite his conspiratorial foibles in JFK, he has long been a movie-maker dedicated to raising tough questions about our American past. Where did his commitment to opening historical subjects for debate go?

You mean: “Why isn’t this movie laced with his leftist viewpoints”, don’t you?

He was right not to politicize this film, but truth-telling required that he identify the terrorists. Truth-telling would have resulted in his helping to dismantle the Big Lie that has resulted in the deaths of so many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and has plunged Iraq into chaos and civil war.

In other words, “Why didn’t he politicize the hell out of it”, is what you’d really like to ask.

How could Oliver Stone leave it up to viewers to discover for themselves who committed this crime? And how could he leave the audience with the impression that there was a connection, as Dick Cheney has never stopped saying, between 9/11 and Iraq?

This is the tragic failure of Stone’s World Trade Center. It undercuts the historical value of the film and reinforces the Biggest Lie of the last five years, still believed by far too many Americans — that in Iraq, we are fighting those who attacked our country.

*Groan*….please go listen to Michael Medved’s interview and his reading of the Meet the Press transcripts. It is quite entertaining. Unless, that is, if you are a liberal moonbat kool-aid-drinker.