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.It might have saved lives, but it was rather obviously unconstitutional. Even now, Dick doesn't get it. I did enjoy his frequent references to the bipartisanship of the post-9/11 days--wonder how that stopped, eh? Maybe by intercutting pictures of Democrats and bin Laden in ads for certain Georgia Senate races?
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.It's interesting to note that that Obama faced criticism of his programs head-on in his speech, while Cheney doesn't. In fact, he relies on an essentially circular argument to justify his approach. He doesn't discuss the ever-more-likely rumor, for example, that he tortured to justify his Iraq fixation--he rarely discusses Iraq at all--and he doesn't address the arguments made recently by Ali Soufan that more information was received by nontorture methods of interrogation. As a result, his case is rather flimsy.
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.Did anyone notice that Cheney is, in effect, admitting that what he ordered is a prosecutable offense? I guess he's not too confident in the legal bullshit that he ordered from John Yoo, then put on the menu as prime rib, no?
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.This is just a lie. Everything that happened at Abu Gharaib happened at Guantanamo. Forced nudity, stress positions, waterboarding, etc., were imported to Abu Gharaib as part of an effort to "Gitmoize" Abu Gharaib.
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.Really?
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.Um, that's largely true. A lot of Gitmo "terrorists" were people who were randomly scooped up based on hearsay and detained for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Read Jane Mayer for this.
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.”I think this might be my favorite cheap shot of all. Look, as a member of the left, I don't believe that we brought 9/11 on ourselves. It was an act of madmen who were fully responsible for their actions. But to dismiss a perfectly valid criticism with the familiar (and idiotic) denunciation of "blame America firsters" is about what you expect from a disgraced fearmongering hack like Cheney.
I actually sort of agree with this one:
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.But this is sort of a new standard in denial:
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.The vice president who fought resolutely for dehumanizing torture, aggressive and pointless wars, and against science, reason and accountability is going to earnestly lecture us on these matters. He hasn't earned the right.
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.Actually, this happened a number of times.
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. [...] 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.So why all the speeches? What are you worried about if history will vindicate you? And the last little fragment makes little sense at all. Is Cheney accusing Obama of sharing state secrets with al-Qaeda?
Overall, it's interesting to note the differences between the two speeches. Obama's is an intellectually honest effort, clearly intent on persuading people that his policies are appropriate. I don't always agree with Obama on these issues--he explained the torture photo decision well but I still think it was a mistake--but he is sincerely making an effort to engage in a debate and answer his critics. Cheney, on the other hand, despite an early swipe at being gracious, presented a knowingly untruthful and ignorant speech that ignores recent developments (waterboarding KSM 183 times, the Iraq-torture rumor) and that, despite his invocations of American values, continues to say that security concerns override everything else. Dave Weigel sums it up nicely: "Shorter Dick Cheney: ‘9/11′".
