Cheney's Misstatements, What a Shock...

[Detroitej72]

http://www.yahoo.com/s/1075073

I guess he forgot a few details. However, I bet you wont hear about this on FauxNews or the ditto head show.

If anything, I expect the right's talking heads will call Blair and Muller a bunch of socialist liberals with an ax to grind about their savior.

[Bobl]

What a shock, indeed! Cheney's daughter continued the charade in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper yesterday. Mr. Cooper informed her of the inconsistencies, citing two specific statements she had made in the interview that were demonstrably untrue. No problem, she just brushed him off and continued with her version of recent history.
Amazing.

[ccbatson]

Anyone care to specifically discuss said "inconsistencies"? Or do you libs prefer to stick your heads in the sand as usual?

[ccbatson]

That is someone elses' opinion of the speech, not yours.

As I would not be debating them, it makes no sense for me engage their [[incorrect) assessments without their ability to respond.

[d.mcc]

Read the article - or do you expect us to do that for you?

So he doesn't need to click on the link

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."

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. 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."

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— 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.

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

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

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

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

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

— Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.
The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates .

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

— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."
Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida , a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad
.
The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President [[ George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait ."

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

[ccbatson]

Sigh...same response...YOUR THOUGHTS?? Or don't liberals have any of their own?

[d.mcc]

Sigh...same response...YOUR THOUGHTS?? Or don't liberals have any of their own?

CC...Even if anything comes about this, we can't press charges or indict the VP or anyone in the Bush Administration, thanks to a clever little law passed that automatically pardons any senior member of the Administration for anything related to the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used on captives who had their right to habeas corpus revoked.

So much for Geneva right???

[ccbatson]

Has anyone from Dyes ever pressed charges or indicted anyone? For any reason? What are you talking about? This is a discussion forum, right?

[d.mcc]

Has anyone from Dyes ever pressed charges or indicted anyone? For any reason? What are you talking about? This is a discussion forum, right?

What are you babbling about??? It's an article. Even if it is flooded with facts, which it probably is, as it does not say OP-ED anywhere. Cheney cannot be indicted for anything related to torture. His best bet is to keep his mouth shut lest he let the court of public opinion cast a verdict on him.

[ccbatson]

You are suggesting that it shouldn't be discussed because "we" can't do anything about it. Absurd...we can debate it, if anyone comes forth to do so.

[d.mcc]

You are suggesting that it shouldn't be discussed because "we" can't do anything about it. Absurd...we can debate it, if anyone comes forth to do so.

What the hell would you call the article??? I would call it the starting of a discussion of which YOU have no rebuttal other than to throw out semantics...

[gazhekwe]

The article is a NEWS article reporting facts. It is from a McClatchy News story. McClatchy is a 150 year old company originating on the west coast and owns numerous papers across the country. I read the article, which lists several Cheney statements and the previously reported FACTS that contradict Cheney's statement. Having read the article in its entirety, I believe I understand the premises stated by Cheney and the facts that contradict those premises. I recommend others do the same, then we can discuss the Cheney statements and the factual history he is trying to spin to his advantage.

[ccbatson]

OK, I will begin the debate as liberals haven't the guts [[or confidence, or both)..starting with the first claim...Blair did indicate that the results were helpful...he qualified [[probably for PC purposes) that it is unknown whether the information could have been acquired via other means [[gasp...shocking) which is irrelevant and does not impune what Cheney said as a mistatement/ommission/or exageration.

Next??

[gazhekwe]

.Blair did indicate that the results were helpful...he qualified [[probably for PC purposes) that it is unknown whether the information could have been acquired via other means [[gasp...shocking) which is irrelevant and does not impune what Cheney said as a mistatement/ommission/or exageration.


That is not debate, that is spin. If your argument is based solely upon your opinion of what Blair's intent must have been, it has no validity in a debate. By the same token, I could say, "Cheney obviously knew that the intelligence was inadequate and lied about it." Neither your assertion nor mine holds any water.

Debate would involve your presenting a fact to show your point. That is what the authors of the article did. They gave Cheney's statement, then presented opposing statements and facts.

[ccbatson]

No...that is how we was quoted...but also out of contexts and with a leftward spin.

[Detroitej72]

When the Bush defenders disagree with any statement, they immediately assume it must be an opinion, or propaganda. Only when it comes from their beloved FauxNews do they take it as fact.

[gibran]

maybe Cheney will submit himself to water-boarding for the truth since it is so obvious to his crowd that it is not torture...

[vetalalumni]

The former VP seriously erred when stating there are only 2 ways to understand or interpret. An unsuccessful effort to control the discussion. Whenever someone tells you there are only 2 ways to understand a thing, and then further tells you exactly what these 2 possible understandings are - RUN! Especially when combined with fear mongering.

Faithful and charming Liz, bless her heart, seems so sincere. Apple pie, wholesome and all that.

Could Liz be Olympian Shawn Johnson's mother?

[ccbatson]

You are taking an anti absolute position Vetalaumni....here is one for you: There are no absolutes...except for that one [[the one where the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is made).

[vetalalumni]

There are no absolutes...except for that one [[the one where the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is made).

Philosophical discussion beyond the purpose and scope of this particular thread. Please start a separate thread on Absolutism for further discussion on it [[challenge - I've un-ignored you). I'll contribute if you do. Tangents are ineffective in linear threads.

[ghettopalmetto]

You are taking an anti absolute position Vetalaumni....here is one for you: There are no absolutes...except for that one [[the one where the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is made).

If you use the word "probably" in an argument, as you did, then you're *absolutely* making shit up.

[rb336]

There are no absolutes...except for that one [[the one where the absolute assertion that there are no absolutes is made).

hmmm.....so much for all your threadjacks tauting rand's moral absolutes

[vetalalumni]

Whenever someone tells you there are only 2 ways to understand a thing, and then further tells you exactly what these 2 possible understandings are - RUN!

Math could present an exception. 2 + 2 = 4 is precise and there is little room for other understandings.

Also, at 2:03 of this clip, Senator Carl Levin refutes Former Vice President Cheney.

[ccbatson]

Hmm..rb...you misunderstand the simple logical fallacy pointed out by this circuitous example...To simplify, when a claim that there are no absolutes is made, the claim is invalid by virtue of internal contradiction. It is a claim that states that it does not exist.

[vetalalumni]

ccbatson, are you a masochist? You are gonna lose [[again). We all know what was meant and the context in which it was said. Though you infer it, I never claimed or denied that there are no absolutes. You labeled my assertions as an anti absolute position. You are using a tangent as a tool for your weak argument. A known obfuscation technique which you often use. Do you think everyone here on DYes is uninitiated? You have convinced no one.

So, since you've made this argument, let us deal with it. Please take the initiative to start a different thread on Absolutism. Practice trying to handle a focused, comprehensive discussion which only includes facts that support your original position?

If you are told in advance how badly your ideas around Absolutism will be refuted, will you then create a thread on your views about Absolutism? After all, you started it - now why not finish what you started? Step up. Else you waste others time.

Learn to develop your ideas and make compelling arguments. Make arguments that are not true simply because you say so, or because you think DYes is your own private little sandbox.

You are somewhat tenacious at the outset of your arguments, but you lack staying power once challenged. Ants exhibit tenacity as well. So do wolverines, one of my favorite animals. Your arguments quickly unravel. That is because scattered, undeveloped or inappropriate ideas are unsustainable.

Originally I valued your voracious appetite for abundant postings here on DYes. What value do you bring to DYes? High post count? OK, you have earned your reward many times over. Now what are you going to do? Get over yourself. Why not now earn other victories that have nothing whatsoever to do with quantity of postings?