Cheney's Legacy of Deception

In the end, the shame of Vice President Dick Cheney was total: unmitigated by any notion of a graceful departure, let alone the slightest obligation of honest accounting. Although firmly ensconced, even in the popular imagination, as an example of evil incarnate -- nearly a quarter of those polled in this week's CNN poll rated him the worst vice president in U.S. history, and 41 percent as "poor" -- Cheney exudes the confidence of one fully convinced that he will get away with it all.

And why not? Nothing, not his suspect role in the Enron debacle, which foretold the economic meltdown, or his office's fabrication of the false reasons for invading Iraq, has ever been seriously investigated, because of White House stonewalling. Nor will the new president, committed as he is to nonpartisanship, be likely to open up Cheney's can of worms.

Cheney has even had a pass on torture, the "enhanced interrogation" policy that he initiated in his first months in office. "Was it torture? I don't believe it was torture," he told The Washington Times on Monday, a week after the release of a unanimous Senate report concluding that the policies Cheney initiated indeed were responsible for torture. In fact, the Senate committee concluded that the model for the Cheney-Bush interrogation policy was the torture practices of the Chinese communists during the Korean War. But it's not torture when the U.S. president does it, according to the legal judgments that Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, pushed through the administration.

Fortunately, Cheney's view of the unquestioned unitary power of the presidency was scorned by Vice President-elect Joe Biden: "His notion of a unitary executive" Biden said, "meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power, you know, goes to the executive I think is dead wrong."

With Biden occupying Cheney's old office and presumably his secret bunkers as well, maybe we will, at last, learn a bit more of the nefarious truth about the man. One place to start is with the statement of retired U.S. Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell's chief of staff and who stated unequivocally that Cheney was the primary author of the torture policy: "There's no question in my mind where the philosophical guidance and the flexibility in order to do so originated -- in the vice president of the United States' office."

That lame-duck Cheney was bellowing his claim of innocence in a series of friendly interviews should have been expected. For he, like the president he served, can use the self-proclaimed "global war on terror" as a convenient cover for eight years of treachery on all fronts: "If you think about what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, what FDR did during World War II; they went far beyond anything we've done in a global war on terror."

Actually, neither of those presidents authorized the waterboarding of prisoners or the other explicit acts of torture approved by this administration largely under the vice president's direction. But the true absurdity of Cheney's self-defense is in placing the nebulous war on terror at the same level of threat as the civil war that tore apart this country or the Nazi military machine that rumbled unstoppable across most of Europe, augmented by the military might of Japan.

The invocation of a "global war on terror" is a big-lie propaganda device that has no grounding in reality. The proof that "terrorism" does not exist as an enemy identifiable by commonality of structure, purpose and leadership comparable to the World War II Axis or the Confederacy can be found in its use as a target to justify the invasion of Iraq. An invasion billed as a response to the 9/11 attacks, which had nothing to do with Iraq.

The Bush administration, with Cheney in the lead, did not so much fight the danger of terrorism as exploit it for partisan political purpose. The record is quite clear that the administration was asleep at the switch before 9/11, blithely ignoring stark warnings of an impending attack. But the hoary warmongering after 9/11 afforded a convenient distraction from the economic problems at home. As I asked in a column on June 26, 2002: "Has the war on terrorism become the modern equivalent of the Roman circus, drawing the people's attention away from the failures of those who rule them? Corporate America is a shambles because deregulation, the mantra of our president and his party, has proved to be a license to steal."

That is the true legacy of Dick Cheney and the president he ill-served.

Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig, where this article originally appeared.

Comments

[realpolitic]

I asked Michale32086 why Clinton could protect us without sacrificing our civil liberties. In his characteristic uninformed way, Michale32086 said:

"There wasn't a massive terrorist attack on US soil pre 9/11 because terrorism wasn't the organized and world wide threat it was post 9/11."

Fact: Way back in the 1980's Hezbollah operatives in a pickup truck loaded with explosives rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon killing sixty-three people , including 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

In 1993, Ramzi Yousef used a truck bomb to attack the World Trade Center in New York City.

Hezbollah operatives exploded a fuel truck next to Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 that killed 19 U.S. servcemen and hundreds of others.

In the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings (August 7, 1998), hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the East African capital cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Al Qaida claimed responsibility.

In 2000, Al Qaida was responsible for the speed boat loaded with explosives attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

.......

Yet only one attack on domestic soil under Clinton and no subsequent sacrifice of civil liberties! No detainee abuse! No black site prisons! No taking away habeas corpus rights! No illegal spying on our phone calls!

[realpolitic]

Michale, read where it says Bush tried to redefine the law to create appearance of legality:


Bipartisan Report Blames Rumsfeld, Bush for Torture

A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.
In the most comprehensive critique by Congress of the military's interrogation practices, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report yesterday that accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and undermined U.S. security. The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military.


The conclusion is damning and the Republicans all agreed on it:

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the report states. "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."


http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/bipartisan_report_blames_rumsf.php

[Michale32086]

I agree..

The treatment of detainees that were captured on the battlefield of Afghanistan and Iraq was abhorrent...

I have already stated that..

Where we disagree is to include terrorists in your definition of "detainees".... You seem to think that terrorists belong in the same group..

I do not..

And the facts back me up and not you...

Michale.....

[paulfree17]

And who gets to classify someone as a Terrorist?. Of course it is the administration. So we have a situation that says "If you are a terrorist the laws regarding torture and habeas corpus do not apply to you. And since we are the ones that determine if you are a terrorist we can ignore or the laws against anyone we feel like calling a terrorist".

So basically what you are saying is that the administration is within its rights as long as they call someone a terrorist even without having to prove they are guilty of terrorism.

[realpolitic]

Michale, these detainees were handed over by the Northern Alliance to American soldiers for a bounty. In other words, any foreigners in Afghanistan were handed over to American soldiers for money. Bush said the Geneva Conventions did not apply to any of them.

The Supreme Court later ruled that all detainees are entitled to Geneva Common Article Three protections. It says that there should be no

c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;


The FBI complained of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo and then removed their agents. Their report said:

"Captives at Guantánamo Bay were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor for 18 hours or more, urinating and defecating on themselves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa

This treatment stems from a series of Bush memos that tried to define torture out of existence. John Yoo in the Office of Legal Counsel said " To be torture, physical pain must be "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

Bush said no captives deserved even Geneva Common Article Three protections, until this decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. Treatment of prisoners was so bad at Guantanamo that the FBI refused to participate in questioning. In other words, there was no distinction between those caught on a battlefield or so-called "terrorists."

[Michale32086]

@ReasonIsMyReligion

}}}}}}
Clearly, having information is no precursor of making the "correct" course of action -- unless "correct" is defined without regard to the information, as I would posit happened often under this regime.

Isn't THAT both logical and rational?
{{{{{

You are correct. Simply HAVING the information does not automagically assume that the person will make the correct or RATIONAL :) decision..

However, given that we are 7+ years without a terrorist attack on US proper, apparently something is being done CORRECTLY...

I'll take the decisions of those with the knowledge who have a proven track-record over those who just have hysterical and irrational bigotry guiding them.. Present company excepted, of course... :)

It's only logical and... ahem... reasonable...... :D

Michale......

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Just when I thought I was free and clear...

Would more waterboarding have resulted in more peace and prosperity?

Would alternate courses have resulted in more peace and prosperity? (And I'm not even asking the Iraqis.)

But more to your "terrorist attack" meme -- are there MORE terrist training camps in Pakistan now than before we went into Iraq?

Truly, gotta run. Will check back tonite after some eggnog.

Happy Holidaze.

[RussellH]

I suggest that the "terrorists" see no need for another attack! They got more than they bargained for with 9/11. Yes, that is the date of obscene horror, tragedy and death! But look what has been achieved by our government in using fear to allow unprecedented acts of treason. And it was all internal! The financial ruin of our nation can be directly attributed to the needless Iraq war---decimated our military and our standing in the world, as well as lack of regulatory oversight. Check! Re-election of a man who helps bin Laden recruit! Check! Torture helps recruit, too! Check! Once the sun set on 9/11, the wheels were turning to establish programs and procedures to "protect" us at home. Bin Laden indeed got more than he dreamed of!

[Michale32086]

And you base this on... What exactly???

What experience, training or expertise do you have that allows you to make the determination that "terrorists see no need for another attack" and "Bin Laden got more than he dreamed of"?

What do you base this information on??

Besides bigotry, I mean...

Michale.....

[MIVOTE]

Michale......your argument disqualifies itself and is therefore -- illogical! "With the knowledge who have a proven track-record" are expected to make rational and logical decisions. Hence that's why they are supposedly in charge. If they are without that ability they are not knowledgeable no matter the track record. Clearly, having information IS a precursor of making the "correct" course of action with the intelligence to change stragegies and tactics as information changes. This is clearly what has been lacking over the past 7+ years. Since you've liked their decisions and feel oh so safe, even though we, Americans, are stretched further than before 9/ 11, we will certainly be at the mercy of whatever fate comes, I do not consider being without terriosts attacks as we are no longer strong...where it counts...in the pocketbook.

[Michale32086]

That's your opinion.. And I respect that..

I simply disagree.....

Michale......

[realpolitic]

So we are supposed to give Bush all credit for a negative- that no attacks happened after 9-11? How many domestic attacks happened before Bush entered office? There was one in 1991, I believe, when terrorists exploded trucks at the base of the World Trade Center. So Clinton protected us for years without sacrificing our civil liberties!

Michale, most of your arguments deal with semantics, straw men, or offer us false choices, like we must lose our civil liberities or else that means the constitution is a suicide pact. All those binary choices are Fox news-type propagandistic nonsense.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
So we are supposed to give Bush all credit for a negative- that no attacks happened after 9-11? How many domestic attacks happened before Bush entered office? There was one in 1991, I believe, when terrorists exploded trucks at the base of the World Trade Center. So Clinton protected us for years without sacrificing our civil liberties!
{{{{

That's like claiming that there wasn't a nuclear bomb attack in Asia before the US attacked Japan with one.

There wasn't one because nuclear bombs were not around.

There wasn't a massive terrorist attack on US soil pre 9/11 because terrorism wasn't the organized and world wide threat it was post 9/11.

Face it. You are simply averse to giving credit where credit is due. You are psychological incapable of thinking, let alone saying aloud, that there MIGHT have been some good from the Bush Administration.

That is why it's easy to refute every argument you come up with.

Because your arguments are borne from bigotry and hysteria rather than from facts and logic...

Michale.....

[paulfree17]

The oath of office that is taken by the President and VP is to "Preserve, Protect and Defend the CONSTITUTION of th United States" against all threats foreign AND DOMESTIC"

How can claim that in order to defend the Constitution they must ignore it. The Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government and not for a Unitary Executive. Studies of shown that the majority of Congress doesn't even understand the constitution and I am sure that applies for many in the administration. I would hope that the Supreme Court at least is well grounded in Constitutional Law.

So even if congress cedes its authority to the executive in terms of granting the executive the right to spy on citizens without warrants that still remains an illegal act since it is an authority Congress does not have the right to cede to anyone.

It would be as if Congress gave the President the right to execute anyone without trial. Just because Congress gives the president the ability to break a law does not mean the act is legal.

[Michale32086]

The US Constitution is not a suicide pact. Even within the confines OF the document are the provisions to SUSPEND the document, should the need arise..

}}}}
Just because Congress gives the president the ability to break a law does not mean the act is legal.
{{{{

Actually, yes it does...

Because the Constitution that you are so fond of gives Congress that specific authority...

Again, the genesis of the MCA is a perfect example of how the three branches of the government working in unison with the Constitution as their guide keeps this country safe..

Michale....

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Lots of circular logic.
Please cite the clauses in the Constitution to which you refer.

[twocrows]

"the Constitution that you are so fond of"
spoken like a true quisling.

if YOU are not "fond of" the Constitution, I have a number of countries you might consider moving to. They don't _have_ Constitutions. You'll probably feel right at home there.

[ballsmuch]

you go beyond the call of duty to defend the indefensible. you, sir, are a true patriot.

[research]

Incredible.

The Bush Administration is now getting relaxed and sloppy.

They believe they have won.

They are the greatest criminal enterprise in history.

They are untouchable. They have countless billions in their cronies accounts.

They have palaces in Dubai and Paraguay, places without extradition to the USA.

They have hard drive full of incriminated surveillance on all their enemies.

They have proven that the elite completely dominate the mob.

And they still have loyal GOP dupes defending them.

[blooddoc]

You can berate Cheney all you want for WHAT he did - and rightly so - but the manner in which he did it, with breathtaking arrogance and a disregard for civil discourse and consensus, deserves the strongest condemnation. It is a progressive's wet dream to see this guy do a perp walk out of a courthouse, heading to jail.

[Yermammy]

"It is a progressive's wet dream to see this guy do a perp walk out of a courthouse, heading to jail."

WRONG. It should be the duty of any jack man in this Country of Ours that holds the Constitution and Rule of Law more important than ANY one man- be he blue, red or green. A true patriot is sworn to America and no corruptible party. The wet dreams exist only in your realm.

[fishgirl26]

Way to go Dick!!!!! Just remember..­..........­.KARMA>

[Yermammy]

Succinct and to the point. Thank you for summarizing the last eight years of lawlessness in our America. Richard Cheney is the best argument against career politicians. If you ever wondered how Bush Junior could smirk so arrogantly or Dick smugly retorting "SO?", all you have to recall is his reply on the Fox News Sunday interview (12/21) on having the "football" at G.W.'s side at all times. He was basically taunting "we have a really big revolver pointed at the United State's head, so piss us off and we'll let her have it". I've been a big proponent of Impeachment (starting the proceedings stops the pardoning power), but now I think it'd just be wiser to let them leave office peacefully (to get the football out of their hands) and strongly demand President Obama to join the ICC (International Criminal Court). You now understand why Junior would never have joined this consortium. This would solve two problems simultaneously- proclaim/confirm world opinion and convict without political posturing. Join the ICC!

[Michale32086]

ballsmuch

}}}}
your basic argument: the Bush administration did not violate laws because Democrats approved their actions. there are some complexities to consider but that is your position in a nutshell. the logic behind it is laughable. the fact a law was violated still exists despite approval or acquiescence by other parties.
{{{{

Your argument fails to take into account one crucial factor.

It's Congress that MAKES the laws..

Ergo, if Congress said that Bush could do it and Bush did it, it's not illegal...

The genesis of the MCA is a perfect example of how the system works.

The simple fact is, there can be no impeachment or prosecution of Bush et al because Congress authorized each and every action..

Why do you think impeachment was never even an option??

Michale.....

[ballsmuch]

right and all 535 members (all Democrats?) of Congress agreed with the Bush administration.

however, let's stick to your comment about the hypocrisy and the hysterical left as it relates to violations of the law by Bush et al.

that's your MO...switch subjects.

[Michale32086]

I never claimed that Congress passed anything unanimously.. However, the AUMFs were pretty close...

Regardless of that, the fact that Congress passed the laws is what is relevant here. And several were passed when Democrats had control of Congress..

Hard to blame the minority for this, ain't it?? But I am sure that won't stop you from trying. Just like the GOP blamed the Democrat minority when the GOP was the majority..

You are closer to the GOP than you care to admit...

}}}}}
however, let's stick to your comment about the hypocrisy and the hysterical left as it relates to violations of the law by Bush et al.
{{{{{{

By all means..

MCA, FISA, Patriot Act, HR6304, AUMF, AUMF-Iraq.....

Shall I go on???

Michale.....

[realpolitic]

Why was Scooter Libby thrown in jail? Are you even aware of this Congressional finding?

Bipartisan Report Blames Rumsfeld, Bush for Torture

A bipartisan panel of senators has concluded that former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials bear direct responsibility for the harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and that their decisions led to more serious abuses in Iraq and elsewhere.

In the most comprehensive critique by Congress of the military's interrogation practices, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a report yesterday that accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the authors and chief promoters of harsh interrogation policies that disgraced the nation and undermined U.S. security. The report, released by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), contends that Pentagon officials later tried to create a false impression that the policies were unrelated to acts of detainee abuse committed by members of the military.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/bipartisan_report_blames_rumsf.php

[jsgaetano]

Lie until far beyond the bitter end. That's the lesson all the Nixonians learned when he was pardonned, and Cheney learned that lesson best of all.

[Michale32086]

@StillAmused

}}}}
Keyword: "MAINLY"

Checked any polls lately?
{{{{{

Your "evidence" is POLLS!!??? :D

Yer kidding, right??

}}}}}
You've been a relentless defender of war criminals and corporate thieves.
{{{{{

Hardly...

I simply point out the hypocrisy of the hysterical Left when they castigate the GOP for things that their own Democrats have approved...

Michale....

[ballsmuch]

"I simply point out the hypocrisy of the hysterical Left when they castigate the GOP for things that their own Democrats have approved"

this is the only comment worth addressing.

your basic argument: the Bush administration did not violate laws because Democrats approved their actions. there are some complexities to consider but that is your position in a nutshell. the logic behind it is laughable. the fact a law was violated still exists despite approval or acquiescence by other parties.

picture a court room where a lawyer argues, 'your honor, yes my client broke the law but his colleagues approved of him breaking the law. therefore, my client is not in violation of the law.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Good grief.
Thanks for clogging the screen.
Looking out for those of us not interested in scrolling down to see non-timely rejoinders?
Sheesh.

Happy Christmakwanzukkah to all.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
Good grief.
Thanks for clogging the screen.
Looking out for those of us not interested in scrolling down to see non-timely rejoinders?
Sheesh.
{{{{{{

Apologies.. it's hard to keep on top of all the replies and personal attacks.. :D

}}}}}
Happy Christmakwanzukkah to all.
{{{{{

gesundheit....

Michale......

[Rule Of Law]

Reason, and the response below should alert you and Research to what the game here really is. He's counting hits. He's hoping to be the next Rush or Drudge. I know it's hard, but feeding this is like giving blood to a cancer.

Have a great holidaze,

Rule

[OmegaZ]

*Thunderous Applause*

[JohnnyHifi]

I'm waiting for January 20th - when lies and deception will be swept aside by leaders with high moral standards accountable to the people. Cheney for one should be made to "please explain?"

[mjc]

Even though it was Cheney who initiated many of the horrors of the Bush/Cheney administration, what is even more amazing, unforgivable, and horrific is the fact, FACT that is, that no one really stopped and deleted those horrors, not Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor the 4th Estate; the media, with few exceptions, somehow was absent, uncritical and "understanding" of these crimes because of the threat of terrorism. Our vaunted political system really did not survive such machinations. Our people can never completely relax again with the Cheney ideology in ascendancy.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
Even though it was Cheney who initiated many of the horrors of the Bush/Cheney administration, what is even more amazing, unforgivable, and horrific is the fact, FACT that is, that no one really stopped and deleted those horrors, not Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor the 4th Estate; the media,
{{{{

And why do you think that is??

I ask you to put aside partisan bigotry and thing logically and rationally for a moment.. Just for a moment. It won't hurt, I promise...

If all those afore mentioned people, agencies and departments have much more information than you do and they ALL agree on a certain course of action that you personally find distasteful, isn't it even SLIGHTLY possible that they ALL agree because it is the correct course of action?

Isn't that even SLIGHTLY possible??

Michale.....

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Now, now. (Tude check.)

Possible, in foresight for the next round, but that AIN'T what panned out in hindsight.

In fairness, when the previous commenter cites "Congress," "the Supreme Court," and "the 4th Estate," last I checked those were ALL bipartisan, or at least technically multi-partisan.

That those entities nominally have nominally more information (veracity thereof aside for now) doesn't make their judgment any more RATIONAL than anyone else's.

Near-term history has already proven than judgment faulty.

The Welcome Mat for the Whiteout House should not be the United States Constitution.

[Michale32086]

@Davwbaird

}}}}}
So, greed was the culprit, and it rested mainly with GOP,
{{{{{

Assumes facts not in evidence.

One only has to look at recent scandals involving Democrats to realize that greed does not rest "mainly" with the GOP...

Michale....

[StillAmused]

"greed does not rest "mainly" with the GOP..."

Assumes stunted, ideologica­lly-driven perception not in evidence in the population at large.

... but we don't mean to interrupt. Straighten your tutu and continue.

[Michale32086]

I wasn't aware that the "population at large" had elected a spokesperson...

As for, "not in evidence"???

Au contraire'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States

For those who are not enslaved by Party dogma and ideology, the evidence is clear...

Michale.....