defend the indefensible. Of course this was NBC's goal.
But let's face it, rigidly defending some of the things they did to 'the bastards' who pulled off 9/11 cannot be open-ended. Where Cheney goes wrong is the idea that enhanced interrogation methods should be forever etched into our usual and customary interrogation tool box. It has been proven that most terrorists can be broken down through the usual methods when given time. Besides, some actually believe in American exceptionalism (as opposed to Democrats who are conveniently using it for political reasons now).
But therein lies the issue--time. After 9/11 the powers-that-be, including her holiness Nancy Pelosi and his majesty Jay Rockefeller, were all for thinking outside the box to get what we could out of these barbarians before another mass casualty attack occurred. Now in the comfort of time (and no major attacks) it's safe to play the torture card to get themselves on the right side of history for future political use. Yes, they are craven.
But as long as Cheney continues to remain unflinchable when discussing 'the program' the Democrats will keep playing the card with their willing buddies in the media. The NY Times has had the terror report on its front pages since it came out Tuesday.
Not to mention playing it also gives the media and Democrats a diversion from Obama's own hypocritical (and possible unconstitutional ) memos on immigration, the possibility that the IRS gave records of conservative groups to the White House and Justice Department before the 2012 election, the Benghazi hearings, or Obama's recent announcement of sending more troops to the war he ended in Iraq while retaining more in the war he was going to responsibly end in Afghanistan in less than a month.
They've succeeded in moving the news from the GOP shellacking over Obama's failures to GOP torture and black civil rights, neither of which are really deserving of headline news right now.
But the odd thing is, while the talk has shifted back to terrorism vis a vis torture none of the media talking heads have mentioned the few major terrorists captured in the Obama era, such as Ahmed Warsame and Anas al-Liby who were both interrogated for weeks on Navy vessels, or Abu Khatalah of Benghazi fame who was put on a slow boat from Africa. Hopefully there was no stress involved. Was Red Cross or consular access allowed? Nobody cares enough to make it a story.
The talking heads were also not talking about Adnan Shukrijumah, called a Saudi citizen by some, who reportedly died during a raid in Pakistan last week, pulled off without any US help. Does it signal better US-Pakistani relations? Josh Earnest had no clue when asked on Friday. They also seem uninterested in whether the terrorist crossed the Mexican border several times in discussing with AQ terrorists a plot to attack Oprah Winfrey's studios and the Willis Tower on Obama's hometown, an attack evidently thwarted by authorities before it could occur. Sounds like huge news, eh? And how did the authorities thwart it? At least something to run down. But the administration and press appear to be running away from it. Why?
Legitimate reasons of security? Or is it something as simple as a focus on it would negatively impact a president who recently allowed illegal aliens to get green cards and benefits? Oh well, back to NY Times saturation coverage of Dick Cheney's torture era.