By Hanlon, on August 25th, 2009 at 06:02 PM
 First, the unsurprising thing. Remember how Cheney kept telling us that there were memos that, if declassified, would totally vindicate the Bush administration and its torture techniques? Well the memos are out, and they kinda say the exact opposite. I’ll be slogging through the actual documents at some point, but not tonight.
My point here isn’t that Dick Cheney is a liar. We always knew that. No, the interesting thing is the “how”. Take a look at this statement in response to the release of the memos.
“The documents released Monday,” said Cheney in a statement, “clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda.”
That statement is a prime example of the amazing tap dancing Dick Cheney is capable of. What he said isn’t incorrect, but it shows the depths of Cheney’s dishonesty. Most people would, when confronted by the very documents they touted and seeing that they prove the exact opposite, would at least pretend to be surprised by this and at least acknowledge the situation.
Cheney, on the other hand, manages a semantics parry that relies on his sycophants’ inability to pick up on word choice and then to repeat the implied message that “torture works”. Down the road, if it ever comes back to him, he has plausible deniability. After all, he didn’t say that the torture got us any good info, just that those who were tortured gave good info.
It’s not the first time the Bush team has done this. Back during the 2004 election, Bush’s team started accusing John Kerry of voting for higher taxes 350-400 times as a Senator. While technically true, it was a massively misleading claim. As FactCheck explains:
On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”
So when they said “higher taxes”, what they were saying was that Kerry made a vote for a proposal which would end in higher taxes than the opposing proposal. Ergo if you vote for a 50% tax deduction and I vote for 45%, I voted for “higher taxes”. See how that works?
But the Bush team, knowing their people and their media well, knew how it would go down. The Hannities and Limbaughs of the world would take this statement, strip the subtleties of it, and proclaim that Kerry voted to raise taxes hundreds of times. In the same way, Cheney can hold those memos high and shout to the hilltops that it proves that “the men we tortured gave us information which saved lives!”
In a world in which perception trumps reality and sound bytes trump analysis, getting enough media pundits to dance to your tune is enough to “win” the news cycle, repeating the lie until it becomes, if not an accepted truth, a matter of interpretation. As long as Cheney can get the base to believe a lie, even if he didn’t technically say it, he’s already winning.
You almost have to give the guy credit. Few other politicians are so adept at spreading lies without explicitly lying themselves. With Sarah Palin screeching about death panels and Michael Steele saying the VA wants vets to commit suicide, there’s something downright elegant about Cheney’s tactics.
By Hanlon, on July 25th, 2009 at 11:29 AM
 I gotta level with you guys. I’m not really sure I want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes any more. The further we delve, the more obvious it is that for eight years we were led by a group of terrified cowards who jumped at shadows and were willing to set the house on fire if it meant killing a spider or two.
Today’s episode of “No Fucking Way” is entitled Dick Cheney wanted to use the military on US soil and arrest American citizens as enemy combatants… back in 2002. However, there’s an odd type of silver lining to the story: Bush is the one that shot it down.
The Fourth Amendment bans “unreasonable” searches and seizures without probable cause. And the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 generally prohibits the military from acting in a law enforcement capacity.
In the discussions, Mr. Cheney and others cited an Oct. 23, 2001, memorandum from the Justice Department that, using a broad interpretation of presidential authority, argued that the domestic use of the military against Al Qaeda would be legal because it served a national security, rather than a law enforcement, purpose.
“The president has ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” the memorandum said.
In this case, explain what the difference is between “national security” and “law enforcement” in this case. National security implies a solidified effort to take on the nation. That’s not a handful of morons with dynamite-lined jackets.
Keep in mind who the target was in this case. We’re talking about the famed Lackawanna Six, a bunch of Yemeni Americans, all American born citizens, who were arrested for giving materials to Al Qaeda. They were arrested, found guilty, and provided useful information. All without having their balls connected to a car battery or hung upside-down by their toes for days at a time. Bush made the decision to use the FBI, who had already been watching these guys, and it all worked out fine.
Here’s the lynchpin of the story, though:
Former officials said the 2002 debate arose partly from Justice Department concerns that there might not be enough evidence to arrest and successfully prosecute the suspects in Lackawanna. Mr. Cheney, the officials said, had argued that the administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them enemy combatants and keep them in military custody.
That guy was second in command for eight years, folks. He’s a wobbly-kneed coward, another in the line of “24 is totally true to life” crew that thinks a lack of evidence is no reason not to start sending the military after people. It shows a phenomenal lack of respect for the rule of law and justice itself. So pretend cowboys like Dickie think they can just do whatever they want to catch the bad guys. No evidence? No problem!
By Hanlon, on July 13th, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Well Brian, you got it on this one. The secret CIA thingummy that no one was willing to talk about? It was Cheney’s top secret assassination ring. Were you wondering just how deep the rabbit hole goes in terms of shady-ass government evil? This may not be the bottom, but it’s gotta be damn close. At least within a rock’s throw.
Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation? Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?
Yet year after year, according to officials briefed on the program, the plans were never completely shelved because the Bush administration sought an alternative to killing terror suspects with missiles fired from drone aircraft or seizing them overseas and imprisoning them in secret C.I.A. jails.
Guh.
Okay, now a lot of people are going to see that this is, at least in theory, a noble cause and so all the damn liberals should stop bitching because what’s wrong with you don’t you agree that terrorists should be killed? Again, we’re finding a case of “ends justify the means” thinking and so long as the idea was good it means that nothing else matters. Dangerous thinking, to say the least.
First of all, any concept of oversight is right out the damn window. This was so effing secretive they didn’t tell the new CIA director for a while, let alone Congress, and certainly far out of the line of sight of anyone who could possibly have checked to make sure Cheney didn’t basically have his own private militia of assassins to do whatever the hell he jolly well pleased.
Secondly, again, the point isn’t whether or not you support the idea of killing terrorists. We all do. But it’s like suggesting police should be able to run into ghettos undercover and just start killing gang leaders or that the neighborhood watch group should have the ability to burn down the rapist’s house because he got found not guilty and they disagree. The very reason we have these rules in place is to make sure that even the noblest of causes are not undertaken without going down the proper avenues. The best laid plans of mice and men, as they say. And it avoids that whole pesky “devolution into martial law” thing.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the logistics idea. The fact that Cheney even entertained the idea of having a secret, roving band of assassins to be dispatched with no one knowing to engage in international warfare and apparently believed it would work means this is not a man who should have ever been trusted with the office. That’s the kind of bullshit a teenager comes up with after he’s played too much Command and Conquer. “No dude, we can just make like SECRET ASSASSINS that can take care of all that stuff!”
Dick Cheney and George Bush were armchair generals, men who sat watching action movies, pumping their fists and going “hell yeah, that’s how ya do it!” They seemed to believe that the world actually works the way it seems in James Bond and Die Hard, where the world’s woes are all fixed when you throw a brave man who follows his own rules. And that mindset was leading the country.
By Hanlon, on July 11th, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Really, this is just all part of my ongoing theory that however bad it is, it’s gonna get worse. Sort of like The Daily Show’s one-off segment Be Patient, This Gets Amazing, only kind of a Murphy’s Law version of it, applied to the Bush administration.
After all, what’s the only way for the story about the CIA lying to Congress to get more awesome? Why if it turns out Cheney was behind it all!
Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a nascent counterterrorism program that CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated in June, officials with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
Subsequent CIA directors did not inform Congress because the intelligence-gathering effort had not developed to the point that they believed merited a congressional briefing, said a former intelligence official and another government official familiar with Panetta’s June 24 briefing to the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
…
Cheney played a central role in overseeing the Bush administration’s surveillance program that was the subject of an inspectors general report this past week. That report noted that Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington, personally decided who in Bush’s inner circle could even know about the secret program.
Re-read that bold sentence. Then read it again.
Hey, wacky idea. How about no matter how far along a program is, Congress knows about it? I know, it sounds crazy, to think that Congress should be kept abreast of developing programs which are centered around spying on Americans, but what say we give it a shot, guys?
By Hanlon, on June 14th, 2009 at 05:37 PM
I’m not sure how much I can really disagree here. PaulM sent this one in, apparently to give me my daily dose of rage.
CIA head Leon Panetta weighed in on Cheney’s remarks, ruminating on the almost dogged determination with which the former Veep has been saying that the United States is less safe with President Obama at its head.
Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney “smells some blood in the water” on the issue of national security.
…
Panetta said of Cheney’s remarks: “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”
Place yourself in the shoes of a hawkish neocon for the moment.
For the past four years or so you’ve been claiming that thanks to the Orwellian policies of the Bush administration, the United States has been safe and protected from terrorist attacks. Without the torture, without wiretapping, without the wars, without constant dick-waving at the world we’d be getting hit with dynamite vests and bomb shoes every other day.
In comes this new guy, saying he’s going to scrap all that. Get us out of the wars, stop the spying, no more torturing, in effect putting a halt to all the crap you’ve been crowing about for years. If you’re a political cockroach like, say, Dick Cheney, part of you is going to want people to die in order to vindicate what you and your misguided policies. For now let’s just ignore the fact that Obama’s policies are different from Bush’s in the way that a cheese burger is different if you put honey mustard on it instead of spicy.
Side note: wouldn’t this be a perfect time to accuse Dick Cheney of emboldening our enemies? After all, to have a former Vice President (plus surrogates) running around wailing that the United States is less safe now than it was under the last guy, isn’t that effectively saying, “Hey, terrorists! Attack now! The country’s totally easier to attack than ever before!” Hm. Curious.
By Hanlon, on June 1st, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Dick Cheney, on gay marriage:
“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don’t support. I do believe that… historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis… But I don’t have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that.”
Wow.
I am blow’d away. That took balls to stand up against the only section of your party that still supports you. Well done, Cheney. I applaud thee.
By Hanlon, on May 21st, 2009 at 05:01 PM
Cheney proves he’s still clueless.
“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,” Cheney said. “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.”
That’s right. It’s fake anger, contrived just because we’re sooooo gosh darn partisan.
Real posts coming later.
By Hanlon, on May 10th, 2009 at 11:30 PM
I almost wonder if we’re watching a conscious effort on the part of the Republican Party to self-immolate in the hopes that they’ll resurrect like a phoenix once the crazies burn off. If you’re wondering what I mean, Dick Cheney said he supports Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
CHENEY: Well, if I had to choose — in terms of being a Republican — I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. My take on it was that Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican. [...]
SCHIEFFER: And you said you’d take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell?
CHENEY: I would. Politically.
A few things to keep in mind.
Colin Powell’s approval rating: 80%
Rush Limbaugh’s approval rating: 19%
So Dickie sides with the guy that’s not even that popular amongst Republicans. By the way, Cheney’s popularity? A paltry 13%.
This is what I mean. The GOP brass seems to be hell-bent on not giving a damn what their supporters think. They cast out moderates, insult the massively popular Powell, and our televisions are filled with images of a horridly unpopular ex-VP praising a horridly unpopular radio squawkbox. This normally wouldn’t matter except this is the public face of the Republican Party.
There was a time when the elephant banner stood for some things I disagreed with, but were at least respectable: higher personal responsibility, fewer government programs, Christian values. Oh sure, we could get into arguments about those but it stayed in the realm of “this is what I think is best for the country”. The representatives of the Grand Ol’ Party are men who want to demonize, slime, and insult anyone who dares cross them.
It’s no coincidence that the Republican who supported the Democrat is highly respected by both parties. The United States is aching for reconciliation between the sides, that we understand that everyone wants what’s best for America and the future generations that live within it. Yet here we have these two jackasses.
The fact that Bush said Obama “deserves my silence”, frankly, made my respect for the guy shoot up substantially. He recognized that Obama’s got enough on his plate already and having the last administration running around bitching at him isn’t going to help matters. Kudos, Dubya. Maybe I was wrong and you really were a generally decent guy led astray by guys like Cheney.
By Hanlon, on April 21st, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Suck it, Darth.
Seventy-two percent of those questioned in the poll released Monday disagree with Cheney’s view that some of Obama’s actions have put the country at greater risk, with 26 percent agreeing with the former vice president.
…
“By a 53 percent to 46 percent margin, Republicans agree with Dick Cheney,” he said. “But more than nine in 10 Democrats believe that Obama has not made the country less safe from terrorism. They are joined by more than seven in 10 independents who don’t see an increase in the threat from terrorism since Obama took office.”
When you can barely convince half of your own party, you’ve lost.
By Hanlon, on March 21st, 2009 at 11:57 PM
 I watch pathetically few interviews on shows like 60 Minutes and Meet the Press, and given Obama’s digs at his detractors, I really need to get on that. Actually the only one that matters is what he said in response to Cheney’s pathetic attack that Obama had made the country less safe:
“How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?” Obama asks. “It hasn’t made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment.”
Exactly. Ex-fuggin-zactly.
Take a look back through the last few years. For all the yammering about how much safer we are, it really boils down to a single claim. The absurd notion that while all those terrorists are still out there, they’re “marginalized” and are “less likely” to attack. They’re not in prison, they aren’t dead, just apparently they’re too scared to attack. Must have something to do with our policy of setting everything on fire and running around screaming.
Doubt that? Al Qaeda still sends out videos, the Taliban is doing TV interviews, Hamas and Hezbollah haven’t been diminished in the slightest. We’ve made zero headway in terms of actually eliminating terrorism, all we’ve done is put the spotlight on ‘em, handed out recruitment forms in the Middle East and made our own people terrified.
|
|
|
