The Former Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech today in front of American Enterpise Institute -- AEI) with whom he is now a trustee. I am going to give a point by point counter and analysis of his entire speech. It's long but well worth the effort I believe.
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.
The conflict of interest that occurs when the Vice President has been so embedded with the energy interests, then lobbies hard to invade two energy rich nations has always been a obstacle to Mr. Cheney's ambitions. Nevertheless, the weight of his office and the fear raised by 9/11 shielded the VP from widespread damage to his credibility.
Also, he brings the President Bush along into the debate. Although Cheney's words are not Bush's, he cleverly mentions his name and links the President Bush with his defense. This speech will be both of their "Apology" (Plato's fiction the Socrates trial).
"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."
It is a logical fallacy to say because an untrustworthy man applauds a decision that it is an incorrect one. Nevertheless, in this case I think it speaks volumes that Cheney endorses the Presidents latest reversals. On the issue of National Security, Cheney has gotten almost nothing right.
"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 backwards."
Nevertheless, Cheney spends the entire speech looking backwards. More to the point, he mimics President Obama's policy of looking "forward" and not "backwards" (always a wise choose when walking except when a wolf is at your heel).
Looking forward is precisely what he would like the country to do as the crimes of his recent past has made the country less safe and the world a much less pleasant place to live (millions dead, torture, America's image tarnished...)
"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."
The terrorist attacks on that day were painful to the American psyche. It is why to introduce this as the guiding reason for all his actions because then the people may give him a reprieve.
"That attack itself was, of course, the most devastating strike in a series of terrorist plots carried out against Americans at home and abroad."
He is linking all the other terrorist strikes here to build up the reasoning for America's shift in policy.
"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."
All of course endangering the very existence of the United States of America. Oh, wait, that is not the point. Every attack he mentioned, while painful, was a criminal act not am act of war. This is important because how we approach defending America rests upon how we view those attacks.
One can view, as Cheney claims he did, that terrorism was the single greatest threat to national security. Giving those attacks (3 which occurred on foreign soil), the argument is ludicrous. You have to go a step forward and introduce nuclear weapons into the equation.
"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."
Remember their were reports the intel community gave the Bush administration that 9/11 might happen. We could have prevented 9/11 with the intelligence we were given before the attacks. The Bush administration failed and in response they overreached.
The terrorist acts on 9/11 were criminal acts to be dealt with as such. The 9/11 attacks were more spectacular than the rest but not an act of war by any nation. Al Qaeda is a non-governmental entity that moves between nation. We cannot invade every nation in which they reside. Osama Bin Laden was offered to the last administration by the Taliban which the President rejected.
"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."
What made 9/11 different? Also, in our neighborhood would you like it if the police tried to prevent crimes from happening in the first place? You have to ask yourself how far you would like them to go. Would you like them to spy on your private conversations? Would you like police on every street corner? Would you like them to summarily arrest people and interrogate innocent people? As we all know police usually respond to something that has happened. It is too costly to prevent most crimes.
The same is true internationally. Of course we want the CIA to listen to chatter and we want our intelligence agencies to arrest conspirators. But going to war with nations that "harbor" terrorists, rounding up innocent people and interrogating them, torturing people to gain information; this is a hellish policy, reminiscent of scary films and books.
This is not the way to make the country safe but it is certainly a way to make the world more dangerous.
"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."
When the people were in trauma and terrorized they could have universal support. When people woke up, some realized the danger of our new policy the support was not universal. The Bush administration used their universal support to launch an aggressive war against Afghanistan , a preemptive war and we find out now preemptive interrogations.
" The fourth unknown is the ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance (this general philosophy, in an even cruder form, prevailed in Iraq as well, helping to produce the nightmare at Abu Ghraib). All that was necessary was to extract everything possible from him and others like him, assemble it all in a computer program, and then look for cross-connections and serendipitous incidentals." ~Rachel Maddow, Lawrence Wlikerson interview
"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."
Here is introduces nuclear weapons, of course. That another attack might come in a few years is not a surprise. When you are the only super-power that uses you empire to dominate the world you make a few enemies. If the best our enemies can do is 9/11 we can endure those attacks.
Not nuclear weapons though. Not anthrax. Cheney's point is that "we didn't know what was coming next" and not knowing means of course you have to assume the worst. Therefore, it was our countries overwhelming duty to protect against a nuclear attack.
Not really pondering the likelihood of a rogue nuclear weapon launch. The latest fiction is backpack nukes and dirty bombs. We might be hit by an asteroid as well but we are not engaging in a all-out worldwide effort to avoid doom. Why? Because the odds are infinitesimally small. So were the odds of a backpack nuke denoting in NYC.
The argument is flawed on many levels. There are other groups that would love America not to exist. They could, conceivably, obtain nukes. We don't worry about that because it is crazy to worry about that. The world is a dangerous place, folks, and we can't fight against everything that might happen. We have to give due diligence and protect ourselves the best we can and live our lives. We cannot invade other nations on the basis that one day they "may" attack us. This is not wise policy and it is not fair to the country we invade. No, it is aggressive war forbidden by the international community and frankly evil.
"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."
If this was foremost on their minds I feel sad for our country that such incompetent people were in charge of our security. This was never a serious threat no matter what they say. The threat was also able to be handled by our intelligence community and going to war was never the solution.
"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."
Let's take the former VP at his word. His experience on 9/11 itself shaped his policy views. It is easy then to see the problem. His personal terror and fear gave false weight to the need to preempt another attack. Instead of looking at what the nation should do objectively, he was basing decisions on the "horror" of those that jumped to their deaths from the buildings of 9/11.
I remember the day well. Tears slowing from my eyes, I was glued to the television for days. I wanted revenge, I wanted justice...in that mindset I would have killed the man that claimed responsibility. I am a flawed man. With the coolness of time I can realize that this was not the way to handle the situation. This is why we have the rule of law to prevent such passions leading people or countries from hasty decisions.
Cheney relishes this bias, however. He believes 9/11 sanctions any actions that would go to prevent another. I will say that if it requires two wars, the death of over 1 million foreign civilians, the loss of close to 5000 US servicemen and women lives, 2 trillion dollars, and torture that I would not prevent 9/11.
Over a million people have died because of our wars. Think about that a second. This was not terrorists that killed those people but its the result of our government. A million. Millions displaced from their homes...does fighting terrorism require us to become terrorists?
"To make certain our nation country 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."
Afghanistan did not have the capacity to build nuclear weapons. They offered us Bin Laden if we stopped our bombing campaign against them. We rejected their offer.
The goal was not to stop terrorists or another 9/11. The goal was Afghanistan itself. The goal was Iraq itself. Not WMD, not because Al Qaeda was there but Iraq itself.
"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."
Thousands of our troops dead, injured, suffering PTSD; hundreds of thousand of foreigners killed--all in pursuit of stopping a fear in Cheney's mind.
"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."
~False Dichotomy: A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy consisting of a supposed dichotomy which fails one or both of the conditions: it is not jointly exhaustive or not mutually exclusive. In its most common form, two entities are presented as if they are exhaustive, when in fact other alternatives are possible.
There are other options. As in 9/11 was apart of a series of attacks and that more were/are coming. This is the nature of our empire. We have enemies, they will attack us, and we can respond. Terrorism was not an existential danger to the United States until our war on terrorism.We had intelligence that could have stopped 9/11 but the last administration dropped the ball.
We have given our enemies a huge recruiting tool. They can argue that the United States is at war with Islam itself, all the more since classified intelligence briefings used old testament quotes on their cover pages. The entire "war on terrorism" has made us less safe.
"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."
Torture taints intelligence (in more ways then one). After you've tortured someone whatever they say in unreliable. To act upon their intelligence may lead you to make wrong decisions (invading a nation with no WMD for example).
He says he did not "invent" the authority but was given so in Article II. This can be debated in a separate blog but it is not clear that Article II or the AUMF is necessarily legal.
"All necessary and appropriate force," does that include invading a nation that is no threat to America? Isn't that a war crime?
"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."
The surveillance program spied on U.S. citizens in violation of the law. That in itself should have him speaking today in an orange jumpsuit. The NY Times published this story because Cheney (Bush dministration) was breaking the law.
"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."
This is supposed to be persuasive. We only tortured the really bad ones, the Lex Luther types that can't be trusted in US prisons. How do you know they were really bad? Cheney tells us so. He also suggests that being evil allows us to inflict evil pain upon them. I reject this entire line of thought.
We are not torturers because it makes us as bad as any "bad" person. Torture does not provide information, and even if it did we tortured one prisoner 183 times. This was meant as punishment torture for its own ends.
"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."
He admits he was a proponent of torture. Arrest him now. He is a war criminal.
"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."
He is correct. Everything should be released, including the torture photos. Let it all come to light just how evil the VP is.
More to the point, however, the memos in which we gained intelligence through torture is necessarily tainted. They were gained via torture and are therefore unreliable.
Even if he is correct though, terrorist gave information that led us to believe that Iraq had WMD. This led us into a war with Iraq, falsely, which cost Iraqis a million lives, the United States 4000+ lives, and 2 trillion dollars. Is that a good trade-off?
When you are tortured you will tell your torturers what they want to hear. Period.
"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."
I can think of a more troubling precedent; allowing a former administration to wage aggressive war and torture with no accountability. This only paves the way for future criminality from an Executive that is more powerful than ever.
Moreover, the left is not criminalizing the Bush administration's actions. They are already criminal. We ask only that the rule of law be upheld.
"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."
Some things you cannot be commanded to do. Some things it is your obligation to forbear even at personal cost. see Nuremberg Trials **see the very good movie A Few Good Men**
Those who tortured should pay the price as a lesson to future would-be torturers.
"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."
Leon Panetta is the head of the CIA. Clear conflict of interest since prosecutions would hurt CIA members and credibility.
"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."
It would not matter to me if it happened to Satan himself. Torture is illegal, immoral, and wrong. More importantly than that, if you tortured those with "the highest intelligence value" you tainted vital intelligence that would help protect this nation. He is admitting to making the country less safe.
"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."
This is at odds with Ali Soufan's statements that KSM talked before he was tortured and then shut down.
Whom do you believe?
Truth is that KSM's confessions after he was tortured are tainted. Torture is used to make people say what you want them to say.
"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."
What happened at Abu Ghraib is a continuation of the policy to not apply the Geneva Convention to detainees. There is a link between the torture of the two places. Insofar as only a few people werre punished for bu Ghraib does not prove it was the result of only a few bad apples. Their orders can from the top.
"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."
This makes the torture all the more damning. If they were specially chosen perhaps there is culpability at the top in the CIA as well.
"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."
Reviewed meaning micro-managed. In the case of Gitmo, there is no bad apples defense. Bush, Cheney, the NSA--perhaps even Congress (though Pelosi says the CIA failed to tell them the details).
"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."
The dehumanization is palpable. To Cheney, terrorists are less than human. It is similar to the arguments people make about dog-fighting. "They're just dogs who cares!" They are human beings like you and I and no human being deserves torture.
We do not deserve to have torture done in the name of protecting America.
"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."
Not a defense. We waterboarded a man 183 times. Tell that to a judge sir.
"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."
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Quote by: Hermann Goering
I'll finished the rest but my internet connection died. I have it saved in word but when I opened the file it read, "file not found" and now it is gone grr...I will just make this part one and finish the rest tomorrow unless someone else wants to complete the rest and give commentary :)