Today, former vice-president Dick Cheney delivered a speech called (I'm not kidding) "Keeping America Safe" at the neoconservative think tank, American Enterprise Institute where Cheney is also a trustee. The title gave me pause because I - like many Americans - remember something called 9/11 that happened both on George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's watch. So if someone asks me who I think keeps America safe, the first name that pops into my head isn't Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney.
Cheney accurately summarized his own service as Vice President when he murmured about "the dark side" and slithering in the "shadows [of] the intelligence world" during his 2001 Meet the Press appearance. Some of the craziest Constitutional and international law violations occurred when Cheney controlled the President's attention: Iraq, The Patriot Act, wiretapping, torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, the US attorney firings, the list goes on and on.
Dick Cheney is a painful reminder of America's sins to a population eager to make amends with the rest of humanity. It's rare that Americans get to see such a Machiavellian creature in its essence, while it's still alive. History books normally act as a buffer between citizens and the dark deeds of their leaders. They get to soothe themselves with retrospect and say, "Yeah, maybe Lincoln shouldn't have suspended Habeas during the Civil War," or "Roosevelt's Japanese detention camps were a bit much." But Dick is very much alive, free, and still trying to convince Americans that even as he violated their Constitution and spearheaded an illegal war, he was keeping them safe. And he's still keeping them safe.
Today, the dark lord returned to AEI to pump more meaningless propaganda into the ears of his sycophantic underlings. Cheney opened his speech by saying he approves of Obama's decision on Afghanistan and reversing his decision to release the photos documenting abuse, and then stressed the old adage that it's essential Americans not look backward (where crimes have been committed,) but look to the future (where crimes cannot have occurred yet).
Whatever choices [our President] 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.
Apparently, the law also does not factor into the President's decision-making, and history is whatever weird, warped interpretation of events Cheney espouses to a roomful of crazed neoconservatives.
Cheney continued, "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." And yet that is precisely what the Bush administration guaranteed through its systematic destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, and areas of Pakistan.
James Cromitie, one of the men accused of being part of the alleged planned bombing of a New York City synagogue said he participated in the terrorist activity because "his parents had lived in Afghanistan and he was upset about the war there and that many Muslim people were being killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by U.S. military forces." No one can know how many people might have died had the synagogue attack taken place, but what we can be certain of is that Cromitie is not alone in his hatred for the United States, and that prolonged occupation of foreign countries can only result in more of this blowback. Cheney and Bush have played a large part in any future attacks on American soil by implementing their aggressive military strategies abroad.
Cheney reiterated his ideology of preemption, or the One Percent Doctrine as described by author Ron Suskind where threats with even a 1% likelihood must be treated as certainties. Such a paranoid, Minority Report view of the world increases the possibility of hitting the wrong targets. "We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad," said Cheney. Of course it did. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Men who are eager to make war will find enemies in the most unlikely places.
Ridiculously, Cheney pulled out the discredited Saddam-Al Qaeda connection yet again to "prove" his point that America's enemies were everywhere: "We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists." Perhaps to hurry us past the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of September 11, 2001, Cheney then launched into a summary of 9/11 that would have made Jack Bauer swoon. Cheney described being swept off to an underground bunker, and later hearing about "the final phone calls from hijacked planes, [and] the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive." As if the 24-hour news cycle didn't already sear those traumatic images into the minds of Americans, Cheney is back to remind us of the events in order to defend his own mistakes and bankrupt ideology.
Hunting down every single person who hates America is - as you'd imagine - difficult, so America had to switch from defense to offense, Cheney explained. The claim that America has ever been utilizing a "defensive" strategy is in itself laughable. Furthermore, Cheney glossed over the fact that his "offensive" strategies included domestically spying on American citizens and invading a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
At this point, Cheney said something with which I actually agree, "We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place." That's true. They did have bipartisan support, which is why I hold the Democrats equally responsible for much of the Bush era war crimes. This is also why I'm filled with concern that many of Obama's decisions have Cheney's seal of approval.
Cheney's proof of victory is that the "enemy" is now on the "defensive," and "every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed." Certainly, bombing the hell out of entire countries may lower the risk of being attacked, but it also vastly increases the risk of blowback. Cheney mockingly refers to blowback as the left sighing that "we brought it on ourselves." What he fails to grasp is that recognizing our mistakes and trying to evolve foreign policy is the work of adults, and not grown men playing soldier from a safe distance in their underground bunker. In Cheneyland, the terrorists attack us because of the "values we profess." Cheney's ideology is - as always - extremely immature, cruel, and myopic.
Cheney claims that specific terrorist attacks were thwarted because interrogators were able to use "tough interrogation" i.e. torture. Even if that is true, such an excuse is again myopic and fails to recognize the terrible consequences of torture. Torture frequently produces false evidence and sends investigators on wild goose chases that cost millions of dollars in taxpayer money. Torture has never been conclusively proven to be faster or more reliable that other methods of interrogation. Al-Qaeda uses the fact that America now tortures to recruit more people to fight for them. Matthew Alexander, a former interrogator, writes, "These foreign fighters made up approximately 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq at that time, in addition to leading and participating in thousands of attacks against Coalition and Iraqi forces." Cheney misconstrues this point and says interrogators were "too lenient" with the men that returned to the battlefield post-torture. Maybe he would have preferred execution squads.
Quite simply: torture makes more terrorists and makes America less safe.
Strangely, Cheney's defense of torture has led him to request a "Truth Commission." I fully support that and think it would benefit America greatly to get the facts on the table. Of course, Cheney shies away from criminal prosecutions should any bad be dug up with the good. "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."
No, some are demanding criminals (even white, wealthy criminals) be treated as criminals. That notion seems strange to Cheney, but it doesn't seem strange to the majority of Americans, who want investigations into whether Bush officials broke the law. Cheney and his cronies are accustomed to skirting the law, but when it becomes too blatant that they committed a violation, they blame an underling. "At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency." The "few bad apples" excuse is worn out and tired, particularly when one considers high-ranking officials like Donald Rumsfeld were sending our memos in regards to the torturing of prisoners that asked, "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?" Corruption starts at the head and rots downward, and torture was not the brainchild of Lynndie England.
Cheney went on to mock Obama's philosophy of compromise. "In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed." Again, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Cheney. When it comes to torture, there is no middle ground and there is no such thing as a little torture. It's always wrong, and those that torture and allowed torture should be prosecuted.
Cheney saved the timely issue of Guantanamo for the end of his speech. "The administration has found that it's easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo." Apparently, law-abiding citizens now qualify as European. Does that mean we get decent health care? Cheney continues in his mocking tone, "But it's tricky to come up with an alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America's national security." No it isn't. Bring the prisoners to America, keep them in supermax, and give them fair trials.
Like he was the prize-winner in a second grade "Why I Love America" contest, Cheney closed with a series of platitudes (my comments are in parenthesis): America loves women (unless they make a choice about their own bodies or want equal pay,) America loves Israel (even when they kill Palestinian babies,) America likes freedom of speech (if it's the right speech,) and religion (as long as you admit there's a man sitting in the sky). We protect human rights (by blowing up the planet, torturing people, and domestically spying on our own citizens). We are good and just (except when we make war and refuse to obey the Constitution and our own laws).
Cheney ended by thanking us, or rather, his audience at AEI. But we should thank him to. No other man illustrates quite so clearly what American should not be. Cheney heaping praise upon President Obama should inspire great concern in his supporters. If there's one man you don't want your President to resemble, it's Dick.
Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.
The mere fact that there is a "debate" over the efficacy of torture illustrates -- in start relief -- just how far we have descended as a culture and as a nation.
After 100+ years of subverting democracies all over the world, this is what we've come to.
Anyone who can't or won't connect the dots is either ignorant or malevolent and given the reticence to investigate and prosecute this latest band of war criminals, they will no doubt enjoy the faux statesmanship afforded previous bad actors. They'll have airports named after them (Dulles), be invited to speak at commencement ceremonies of major universities and to be interviewed in the cosy confines of the Charlie Rose show (Kissinger) or make nearly successful runs for US Senate seats (North).
It is to vomit and while the vast majority of Americans remain embarrassingly ignorant of their country's crimes over more than a century now, the world does not. As our stature in the world inevitably declines (do the math), so will the tolerance of the wanton, irresponsible, hegemenous narrow interests who instigate and prosecute these crimes.
There needs to be a Nuremburg type tribunal to suss all of this out. These crimes and criminals need to be prosecuted and sentenced. Period. Anything less will only facilitate the next great American atrocity.
I've stopped reading Huffpo regularly and don't post here anymore, but I have to say that this is one of the best-written blogs I have read in a long time. Direct, almost blunt, but still sophisticated. Congrats.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998 which included this paragraph which neatly foreshadows the Bush Administrations approach to Saddam Hussien and Iraq:
"We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Republic-in-a-can(s) renaming Democrats?
The republican fascist party. What's in a name? That which we call a [fascist] by any other name would smell as rotten. Who gave these Republic-in-a-can(s) naming rights. What's next, "the country formerly known as America?" Or, how 'bout, "Cheneyland," for the once and future king of the former land of the free? Hmm... Yeah, right. When they pry my freedoms from my cold dead hands! RainJustice!
In Cheneyland, we profess no values, so that doesn't make any sense to begin with.
"According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society." Jihad is directed against Satan's inducements, aspects of one's own self, or against a visible enemy. The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf). Islamic military jurisprudence focuses on regulating the conditions and practice of Jihad as-sayf, the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and thus the term Jihad is usually used in fiqh manuals in reference to military combat."
And the attacks on London happened in July 2005. The people who blew themselves up left videotaped statements saying that Iraq was PRECISELY why they carried out those attacks.
I'm not a Muslim nor do I agree with killing innocent civilians but facts are facts whichever side is espousing them and you are patently WRONG.
Itchy.
I'm just trying to get an idea of how blamless and pure people think we are.
Since the terrorists attack us because of the values we profess... the best way to keep us safe is to get rid of those values.... hahahaha
See how that works???? What really cracks me up is that he will say that... then say that "the left" is wrong for saying "we brought it on ourselves. If they attack us because of the values we profess... didn't we bring it on ourselves by having those values?
Seriously though... that has always been dumb reason to believe people don't like you. They hate us for our freedom. Um... yeah.
Halliburton and their spinoffs got to make a lot of Money. Blackwa$$er got to practice pushing Americans around and made a lot of money. Out of work Cruise ships got to make a lot of money.
People were starved until they would sell their flooded homes cheap and a Lot of Big investors and Development co. made a lot of money.
No bid contracts to build Charter ( private/bible) made a lot of money.
The ONLY people to lose were the little people, and What the hell, to Dick and Dub the little people were allways losers anyway.
Disasters= A chance to make a lot of money.
That must be a collection of good ole boys drinking beer all day and pondering the deep intellectual insights of NASCAR.
War is just a Manmade disaster that opens the door to make money , and advance their cause which is Power=Money=Power=money ect..
The problem with peace is It does't pay those in power a lot of money.
As long as any other person on the Earth has a dollar or an acre of land that doesn't belong to those in power he is a threat. Someone else may take that dollar and become more powerful. ( A Threat).
To these people there can only be one successful outcome, One person or an Elite Group, in charge of One Company thay controls the Whole Earth.
Like a Giant Monopoly game , except when they take a country, the people are enslaved and serve them.
Thanks for your brilliant piece!