Cheney: Free Pass For CIA Interrogators Gone Wild

Share |

Former New York governor George Pataki who was in Manhattan when the World Trade Center was hit, used the opportunity to criticize the decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate CIA interrogators who went beyond their legal guidance, saying it "jeopardizes" national security:

When the question of the day was the overall legitmacy of the legal opinions drafted by the DOJ's Office of Legal Council, every supporter touted the unambigious language that clearly defined the boundries and limitations for these enhanced interrogation tactics. However, now that he know that some CIA Interrogators went beyond the legal guidance outlined in those opinions, George Pataki and former Vice President Dick Cheney are now of the opinion that investigating even those that went beyond those clearly defined limits would "jeapordize" national security.

"Placing CIA officials who were acting in the aftermath of the worst attacks against our country and civilians in our history in possible criminal jeopardy years after the fact is in my mind a horrible decision. It jeopardizes our ability to continue to effectively protect our country against those who hate us and want to attack us again."

Oddly, Pataki claimed that his disapproval of the investigation sprung from a concern for the rule of law. "We must make sure we obey the rule of law and act in ways that are not just legal but moral," said Pataki. "But now, years after the fact, to consider charges is wrong for our country, wrong for our security and wrong for the entire world that believes in the rule of law." -

President Bush's war policy has taken this country so far into the abyss that he's left the Republican Party with the impossible task of trying to defend the undefendable at all cost. It has made honesty, integrity, and logic obsolete and no longer compatable with public discourse.

Instead, Bush defenders now have to rely on tender notions, contridiction, and prefaced statements to offer up even a flimsey argument. If you look at Pataki's statement above, he could have said that "Placing CIA officials in possible criminal jeopardy years after the fact is in my mind a horrible decision." But the right has lost the luxury of being direct and to the point. They have to sell everything now by making it a threat to national security or plain old unpatriotic.

Instead, Pataki had to add a sentance within a sentance as an excuse. So now it reads like "Placing CIA officials who were acting in the aftermath of the worst attacks against our country and civilians in our history in possible criminal jeopardy years after the fact is in my mind a horrible decision." Oh...so they broke the law while acting in the aftermath of the worst attack against our country. Well shit! - That's different then! - We can't have the rule of law getting in the way of fighting a war and torturing our prisoners.

When we start ignoring the rule of law or allowing public opinon to determine when it should or shouldn't apply, that is when we jeapordize national security. When we start to rationalize criminal acts based on the circumstances under which they were committed, that's when he jeapordize national security. When we begin to excuse criminal acts based on a flimsey rationalization that it jeapordizes our ability to effectively protect our country against those who hate us and want to attack us again, we're just a hop, skip, and a jump away from becoming a rogue nation.

It's quite clear now that to people like Former Gov. Pataki and Former Vice President Dick Cheney, that there are no limits or boundries to anything done in the name of national security. With a new chapter in the Bush-Cheney saga leaking out of the CIA like a book of the month club, I fear that it will not be long before we learn that what we already know is just the tip of the iceberg.

I fear that some really bad Deer-Hunter kind of shit has gone down at these secret prisons and that Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney's magical history tour actually had fuck-all to do with waterboarding. In a few years time, waterboarding will be a tender notion compared to random execution and negligent homicide in the process of "enhanced interrogation" People like Dick Cheney don't jump into CYA mode to the extent that he has just because we sprinkled some fucking water on someones face. Give me a break!

Chico Brisbane

Socialist Or Jihadist: You Can Only Pick One

Share |

The claim that the Bush Administration “kept America safe from another attack.” following the September 11, 2001 attack on The Word Trade Center has been a talking point more then a fact from it’s first utterance. In order for such a statement to even be remotely true, George Bush and Dick Cheney would’ve had to pick up a rifle and stand a post in Afghanistan or Iraq. Anything short of that is not only absurd it’s bullshit.

After leaving office, the talking point became a mantra for former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz as they embarked on a media campaign following the release of legal opinions from The Department of Justices Office of Legal Council, which soon became known as “the torture memos.” - Both Cheney’s picked up the pace on their damage control tour and would always fall back on that mantra when their arguments in defense of torture where shot down like ducks in a row. “Well….at the end of the day, the Administration did keep America safe from another attack following 9/11.” Liz Cheney said countless times during the media campaign.

If that’s how the Cheney’s want us to see these events, then lets back up a few years to the first attack on the World Trade Center. President Clinton not only kept up safe through out the completion of two terms in office, but he managed to find the perpetrators, bring them to justice, and do so without launching pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation.

It was only a matter of months after Clinton handed control over to George W. Bush did that protection end when the new administration ignored several warning signs. The daily briefing that warned that Bin Ladin was determined to strike inside the U.S.” was ignored and couldn’t have been more explicitly informative then a courtesy call from Osama Bin Ladin himself.

Now President Obama seems to be falling into the same trap that war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a noble cause that will protect America. The fact of the matter is that it won’t and in fact, if anything, it will only increase the desire for Islamic extremist to launch another 9/11-style attack and weaken the Pakistani Government by pushing Al Qaeda and the Taliban across its border.

I needn’t remind the current administration that Pakistan has nuclear weapons that these groups would just love to get their hands on. Yet the Republicans would have us believe otherwise or what Bush and Cheney wanted us to believe for the better part of 8 years. The war against terror was nothing more then a jihad similar to the objectives of Blackwater. It’s chief objective was to rid the world of not only Muslim extremist but also the Muslim faith itself. Therefore, if you supported George Bush, you’re a Jihadist. After all, isn’t that the new battle cry of the right? – If you support Barack Obama, you’re a socialist. Well…I’d rather be a Socialist then a Jihadist.

Cheney Points 911 Blame Away From Bush

Share |

Dick Cheney goes on the defensive and blames 911 on Richard Clark, the former counter-terroism chief under President Bill Clinton. Cheney's remarks where spewed while speaking at the National Press Club today, Cheney struck back at Clarke. When asked about Clarke’s argument, Cheney — once again — invoked the "burning ashes" of 9/11 and the victims who leaped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. Then, quite succinctly, Cheney pinned the entire blame for 9/11 on Clarke: WATCH VIDEO


In fact, it was Cheney who "missed" the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation," reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)

"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)

"Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing" (May 26)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (June 23)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30)

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to "roll back" al Qaeda —

a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials:

Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. … In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." … The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.

Cheney needs to check his "recollections" before blaming former employees for the single most devestating attack in American history.

Bush Kept America Safe: A Fantasy

Share |

George W. Bush claims that his torture policies have kept America safe for seven years and that information obtained via these violations of the Geneva Convention have assertained specific information that have prevented subsequent terrorist attacks (plural) from taking place. Yet we have not heard word one as to the time, place, manor, and person or persons involved in these thwarted attacks, and what judicial measure of justice has been served upon the would-be terrorist?

Much like the so-called terrorist sleeper cell cases of Detroit, Portland, Lackawana, etal, there seems to be an eliment of fantasy in many of claims that Bush and Cheney make in justifying their torture programs. Cheney recently stated in an interview with CBS that he was convinced, absolutely convinced that these policies have saved hundreds of thousands of American lives. Try as I may, I cannot accept such a claim at face value and particularly due it's source.

If the Septmember 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center claimed 3,500 lives, what kind of attack could Dick Cheney possibly believe his torture policy was directly responsible for interrupting that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The fact that he says "I'm convinced" that we saved hundreds of thousands of lives makes it quite clear that this claim is nothing more then an assumption, if not wishful thinking and that it has no basis in fact. Therefore, if he is only convinced and not certain that hundreds of thousands of lives were spared, then whatever information that was obtained via the waterboard would also be assumptive and speculative at best.

If you step back and look at the big picture surrounding this issue, I submit that it was actually President Clinton who is responsible for keeping America safe for seven years following the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. As disconnected as the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and State Departments were during that time, Ramsi Youseff and a whole list of other individuals responsible were caught and brought to justice rather swiftly. Not only do I disagree that George Bush kept America safe as he cliams, I believe that Bush ignored vital information that was passed on to him by the Clinton Administration during the transition in regards to Osama Bin Ladin.

We all know that Bush gave no creedence to the "Osama Bin Ladin Determined To Strike Inside of The United States." memo and the famous "Okay, you've covered your ass." line when he was briefed yet again in person regarding OBL.

Way back in 1993, many may have wondered whether the World Trade Center bombing itself is not a harbinger of the train wreck coming. Well...we now have that answer and no matter how you want to disect it, it happened on Bush 43's watch, and his lack of attention and concern over Osama Bin Ladin was a key factor.

Chico Brisbane