Cheney on MTP

He simply didn't come off looking good, appearing to 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.     

Speaking of Waterboarding

This was a brief blip in the Brit press in 2009:

Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, suggested waterboarding an Iraqi prisoner whom White House officials suspected might possess knowledge of a potential connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, it has emerged.

Two senior intelligence officials said that the April 2003 request was made regarding Muhammed Khudayr al-Dulaymi, head of the M-14 section of the Mukhabarat secret police, whose responsibilities included chemical weapons and contacts with terrorist groups.

There's that al-Dulaimi name again.

This story was covered here at the time. There wasn't much on the web on Khudair Dulaimi then--nothing has changed today, although the Emptywheel did a "what happened to.." story on him back in August.  They don't know much either. 

An earlier Telegraph story from 2003 suggested he was an important thug in Saddam's crime family and perhaps an outreach link between the regime and terrorists, which is no doubt why Cheney's office had interest.

He also worked closely with the Saddam Fedayeen and foreign fighters in the run-up to war, building the contacts vital for the resistance.

Of course the notion that Saddam would even allow an AQ-like figure in his country is preposterous!  We all know he had no use for terrorists.  Curiously the Telegraph piece mentions the following:

His name is on a second, unpublished, list of most-wanted Iraqis who do not appear in the original deck of cards of 55 former regime leaders, although no photograph has been circulated.

Hmm, that's news.  Who else was on the second secret list?  Was it people involved in this?  Here's the final sentence, rather prescient:

Documents found in the suitcase of Saddam's vice-president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, when he was captured last month detailed plans by Ba'athist cells for establishing links with radical Islamic leaders and reorganising the party.

And that's exactly what Izzat al-Duri and friends have done.

Anyway, despite a lack of reporting we have a few scraps to puzzle over. The 2003 Telegraph article dated September gives no indication Dulaimi was in captivity, matter of fact quite the opposite, but the 2009 Telegraph story on Cheney's alleged request says he was in captivity in April 2003, or at least that's when the request was received.  So one of them, at least, is wrong. 

One can imagine that since he was also on some kind of double secret most-wanted list and no picture was ever distributed it's possible he never actually existed.  Maybe he was made up by Iraqis interested in selling information.  We could say the CIA made him up to justify the war and be right, according to most Democrats at least.  Or maybe someone at Langley was trying to snooker Cheney.  April 2003....that was about the same time Joe Plame Wilson was starting to whisper "Bush lied, people died" to Nicholas Kristof at the Times after his colleague Judy Miller found nothing much in Iraq. We all know what happened next.

If he did exist and was what they said he was, surely he was non-harshly interrogated and jailed, but it seems likely that had they found anything such as a link between Saddam and AQ other than that visit by Egyptian Islamic Jihad members to Baghdad before the invasion it would have been made public long ago.   But it's hard to say.   Maybe somebody can ask Cheney.  Or maybe we can get George Ramos to ask Obama, since he's the only one with balls enough to ask real questions anymore.

IS THE GWOT OVER?  12/12/14

Listening to the screed from Feinstein announcing her release of the CIA hit job report (a remarkable journey into the world of hypocrisy and denial) the question should be asked--do these Democrats think the threats are over?  Do they really believe Obama 2012?   If another massive 9/11 scale attack were to happen tomorrow what would DiFi say about belly slapping KSM?   It's as if some Democrats have gone bonkers since the mid-term shellacking.

Speaking of which, CNN had a top headline today about a gripping story that everyone is talking about-- Mohammed Atta in Prague.

A recently released CIA cable casts heavy doubt on a key claim used by the Bush administration to justify the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. It discounts intelligence that said Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 ringleaders, met with an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic a few months before the attacks.

The Bush administration -- which maintained that Atta had met with Iraqi agent Ahmad al-Anian in Prague in April 2001 -- had used the report to link the September 11 attacks to Iraq. CIA Director John Brennan included a portion of the cable in a letter to Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan. Levin, the retiring chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, made the letter public on Thursday.

Well, it's nice to see Brennan included a "portion" of the cable in his release.  Fact is Carl Levin has been pressing this for a long time and probably wants Cheney locked up. The thing is, the story was pretty much debunked a long time ago. 

These Democrats and their sycophants in the media are so desirous for stories bashing Republicans they've resorted to re-hashing old bashes.  At the same time they've almost completely ignored the Gruber hearing on Tuesday, the Benghazi hearing on Wednesday, and the latest revelations from Lerner's emails, Obama increasing troops in Iraq, Iran cheating on their nuke framework agreement, and the lies told about immigration.   Utterly amazing.  But it's worse--it's dangerous for America.

Clinton versus Cheney

Here's Bill Clinton on the developments in Iraq and the recent comments of Dick Cheney on the matter...


Cheney responded by reminding about Clinton's past comments...


So what did Slick actually say?  From 1998....



Specifically, here's what he said we learned in the 20th Century...

..we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary, action.

..and on what we must know for the 21st Century:

..in the next century the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat that Iraq poses now; a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug trafficers or organized criminals, who travel the world among us, unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today Saddam and all those who follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and the clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program...

Sounded a little like Cheney, eh?  In a nutshell those comments were predictive of what might happen with a weak lead-from-behind president like the one we have now.  We all see the results. 

But yeah, in the political arena (and certainly the Kardashian arena) Cheney's viewpoint will not prevail, even if he's right.  Bill Clinton is the last person who should be lecturing anyone about acting on Iraq. Good Lord, will anyone in the media develop a memory? Do bloggers have to do everything for them?  

MORE 6/27/14

Is the Hillary!2016 strategy coming into view? She has three glaring problems to put away before sailing to victory.

One, her (and her husband's) Iraq stance. Bill was relatively silent about Bush going into Iraq in 2003. He largely pulled a Bush43 by remaining silent on the sidelines while his wife was out warning about the menace of Saddam and voted affirmatively on the use of force. Hillary's hawkish stance falls perfectly in line with her husband's speeches, such as the one presented in this post. In 2008 she remained largely silent on the Iraq question, never apologizing, while Obama racked up points with his 'dumb war' rhetoric. The problem now is how to distance her from that history. A lot depends on what Iraq becomes over the next few years and who her opponent might be.

A matchup with Jeb Bush would bring a lot of that history into play, except Jeb will not want to play it. Knowing the Bush's they will not politicize 43's decisions or get into a pissing match about them. That of course would be fine for Hillary, who'd rather talk about domestic issues and other foreign policy actions. However, if Hillary comes up against someone like Rand Paul she'll face the same pressure given her by Obama. Hillary has reportedly already apologized for her vote in the new book nobody is buying, so the strategy may be to get this out in the open and put away now so she can move on to 2016. But it's doubtful a Rand Paul would let her forget it. So under that scenario she'll probably go full tilt lie and start trashing Bush about the intelligence and so forth, which Paul won't necessarily want to defend.

The second thing is Benghazi. We're already seeing the strategy here--blame Obama.

The third item is her competency as Secretary of State, which can also be answered by number two.

There are other issues, but one thing she'll have going for her is the economy, IF it remains in malaise. She will argue that she'll take on the policies of her husband, including his ability to negotiate with the Newt Gingriches of the GOP. She's already hawkish enough to give the impression she'll not hesitate to kick-ass on terrorists.

Shehata-Devil?

The recent capture of Suleiman Abu Ghaith should, at least theoretically, bring to light the history of Iran keeping certain key AQ members under 'house arrest' since 9/11.  But why, some people may ask, would they do it?  After all they are Shia, AQ is Sunni. 

While the answer may be obvious to the Jessica Chastain type characters in the CIA--perhaps as leverage to keep the west from attacking and bide time for the nuclear program, the bigger question may be whether Iran had any foreknowledge of 9/11 (as a federal judge in 2011 ruled in a civil trial).  Such a revelation, if true, is certainly not something that would make headlines at the moment for obvious reasons, nevertheless it might explain a lot about the War on Terror in general.

Poking around on this subject invariably unearths the name Thirwat Shehata.  A lawyer and senior member of Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad (his resume is deep), he was/is among the house arrestees in Iran.  He was also one of the senior members of EIJ that was believed to be operating in Iraq before the invasion in 2002-03, as mentioned by Tenet and Cheney (as casus belli for the attack).  His presence there is disputed, but one thing is sure, he's still around and hasn't been caught and is known as a right-hand man to Zawahiri.

But there's more than just safe harbor in Mullah-ville.  Shehata married the sister of Mahmoud Jaballah, who operated in Canada until he was picked up after 9/11 and placed in their "Gitmo North' without charges.  A judge released him and fellow detainee Mohammed Mahjoub to 'house arrest' in 2007 although the Canadian CIA (CSIS) has been closely monitoring them since.  Mahjoub was connected to "Vanguards of Conquest" (possibly the second in command) and was associated with Essam Marzouk, also a VoC member.  The Vanguards were associated with Zawahiri and Mohammed Atef, who was working on a project when he was droned in 2001. Abu Ghaith threatened America with millions of deaths via WMDs in 2001.  So yes, surely the FBI was very interested in what he might know.   

This blog did a piece on the Canadian connection back in 2008, tying them to suspected AQ figures Mohammed Loay Bayazid, one of the founding members of AQ, and Muburak al-Duri, an Iraqi whom the 9/11 Commission called a WMD procurement person for bin Laden.  Despite all kinds of circumstantial evidence placing these two in connection with AQ or EIJ members, neither have ever been arrested.   Both deny any involvement with terrorism, so maybe the FBI believes them, or maybe there's an inconvenience factor in play. 

At any rate, those not as smart as the Jessica Chastain character might see the dots between AQ, Iraq, Iran and WMD--and even the new Muslim Brotherhood ascension in Egypt--and try to connect them.  Some might even see the "death to America, death to Israel" scribbled in the anthrax letters after 9/11 as the calling card it was intended to portray, ie, don't mess with us, we have sleepers.  Which would line up with keeping AQ figures in-country under house arrest.  Sort of like keeping UBL locked up in a house in a Pakistani military garrison town.  Insurance.  And what about Benghazi?  Any loose connections?  

Or maybe it's all too convenient and Halliburton and friends are still the real enemy.   As usual, mystery and confusion reigns. 

What's that Sulfur Smell?

Ah, our favorite South American tinpot has died.   Who could forget his poignant speech about "the devil" back in 2006?   Surely a few libs were secretly clapping over that one.

Of course his nutcake regime is blaming some American secret program. But hey, Chavez seemed fine in 2009 when he met with our current president for the first time.  And he basically endorsed Obama for reelection.  So it had to be a Cheney death squad hit.    

Anyway, hopefully Sean Penn and Bill Ayers are too torn up about it.  Or Dolores Huerta.  Or Code Pinko. Or the Iranian Mullahs.  Or Hizballah sleepers.   And for gosh sakes let's hope this doesn't spike oil prices.

MORE  3/6/13

When AC messed with Hugo.  That really showed him!   But hey, it does seem there are less CITGO stations around these days.  Just sayin.  

Cheney Again

So it appears Dick Cheney is siding with Obama on Awlaki, but at the same time he's asking for an apology for the way Obama trashed the Bush administration on their pursuit of the terrorists. Talking about 'heads exploding', what's Obama going to do, disavow Cheney?

Speaking of Cheney's memoirs, I'm about 3/4ths of the way through and haven't really seen as many rolling heads as advertised, although he does seem to have an opinion on just about everyone, not always flattering. One thing of interest is his description of the Plame affair.

If we can believe his version--that he asked his briefer to get more info about a report of Iraqi interest in Niger uranium but never received a follow-up briefing, then wondered what the hell was going on when Wilson's allegations began coming out over a year later--it brings up a couple of interesting points. One, the CIA analysts who saw Wilson's report claimed it actually strengthened the case against Saddam due to a 1999 trip made by a delegation of Iraqis (to a country whose largest export is yellowcake uranium).

And as Cheney says, the 1999 trip was actually the basis of the intelligence that went into Bush's "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union speech that the administration later backpeddled and apologized about. Cheney describes Condi Rice as 'tearful' as she later admitted he was correct in his advice not to apologize (what a gentleman--we'll see what Condi says in her book). But as he points out, the UK's Butler Report said the Niger intelligence was "well-founded" and in the end the apology was what started the whole "Bush lied, people died" meme the Democrats tried to ride back to power.

The sticking point seems to be whether Cheney was updated on his request or not. If not then who or whom in the CIA decided not to brief Cheney on what Wilson didn't (and did) find in Africa? Did they intentionally withhold the 1999 information in hopes Bush wouldn't use it to invade Iraq, but later after the apology (and no WMD stockpiles in Iraq) use it against the administration by concocting the whole Joe Wilson thing with the help of certain administration and media figures? Were we actually watching a bloodless coup in motion run by ideologues, or were they patriots? We still don't know for sure. But certain people do know.

Nigeria Wants Cheney

And the left is about to have a field day..

If Nigeria has its way, former Vice President Dick Cheney will be next on Interpol's international "wanted" alert, for bribery charges related to his time as the CEO of Halliburton.

Nigeria's anti-corruption agency says it plans to file charges against Cheney in connection with $180 million in bribes a Halliburton subsidiary paid to Nigerian officials to help secure a $1.2 billion contract during his tenure as head of the company. "We are filing charges against Cheney," Femi Babafemi, the country's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission chief, told Reuters today.

But not so fast, says this site:

Political implications of arresting a former vice president aside, Obama and company are presented with two choices.

First, it can ignore the warrant, thereby straining relations with resource-rich Nigeria, and also undercut its current leadership role in Interpol, which is currently headed by American Ronald Noble, who worked for the Treasury Department during Bill Clinton’s presidential tenure.

The second option: move forward and nab Cheney. This would only inflame the right wing, though, and not simply because of revered Cheney’s elevated status among the conservative set.

Imagine Obama pressing the arrest of Assange, current target of an Interpol Red Notice, while not directing Holder to arrest Darth heart patient. Or vice versa. All while the lame duck Dems bicker over tax increases and the stock market prepares to crash over the coming taxmageddon. Get the popcorn ready, folks..

Fair Haired Games

The Plame movie is out, and Jack Cashill has some comments for Sean Penn. Here's one:

In the film’s funniest moment—I spontaneously guffawed—the Wilson character claims that he and his wife had no interest in publicity.

The rest are better. As for me, I still have two main questions...

1) If Wilson knew there were no WMDs in Iraq after his February 2002 visit to Niger why did he sit silently until May on 2003? He claims to have yelled at someone in State after the sixteen word State of the Union speech yet waited until June to drop his Africa story (anonymously at first), conveniently after Miller had returned empty-handed from her WMD embed. She had Wilson's contact number in her day planner along with "Valery Flame" written as well, which she served jail time for refusing to answer about. As Cashill points out, after the invasion (but before May) Wilson spoke to a peace group and said Saddam still might use his WMDs. He was a TV analyst before the war yet never mentioned his insider knowledge.

2) What transpired during his breakfast meeting in May 2003 with NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof in which Plame was also in attendance? According to reports she didn't speak but if so, how did Wilson explain his trip to Africa? In his later NY Times Op-Ed he made it seem like Cheney sent him--did he tell Kristof this lie? Even the movie called that a deception (lie). What did Plame say other than good morning, and why would she even attend other than to give his story credibility?

There could have been deeper things going on. After all, both the Times and CIA had everything to gain from a "Bush lied, people died" meme after providing all the daily briefings and via reports from folks like Judith Miller and Tom Friedman. If the Times couldn't shift the blame they would soon become a target of their own far left clientele, perhaps to the point of being called war criminals (or even worse, Bush facilitators). Oh well, maybe we'll get a Wikileak on this one day.

UPDATE 12/5/10

Evidently the WaPo editorial board reached their limit of Plame movie chicanery this past Friday and penned this:

"It's accurate," Ms. Plame told The Post. Said Mr. Wilson: "For people who have short memories or don't read, this is the only way they will remember that period."

We certainly hope that is not the case. In fact, "Fair Game," based on books by Mr. Wilson and his wife, is full of distortions - not to mention outright inventions.

And it gets better from there. Fair game? Here's another famous term--"case closed".

Suddenly There's a Threat?

Obama is trying to rid the world of nukes, a noble gesture, but wow--they are now openly admitting that fear of a WMD in the hands of Islamic terrorists violent extremists is not just some Cheney pipe dream:

Terrorists including al-Qaeda pose a serious threat to world security as they attempt to obtain atomic weapons material, Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, declared on the eve of a global summit in Washington to prevent a nuclear terror attack.

The Times interview mentioned former CIA analyst Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, who warned:

Bin Laden's avowed intention to go nuclear has kept the West's intelligence services busy for years.

"Since the mid-1990s, al-Qaeda's WMD procurement efforts have been managed at the most senior levels, under rules of strict compartmentalisation from lower levels of the organisation, and with central control over possible targets and the timing of prospective attacks," Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former senior CIA officer, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in January.

He said Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's Egyptian deputy chief, "personally shepherded the group's ultimately unsuccessful efforts to set off an anthrax attack in the US".

Apart from the letters, which were almost certainly done by Dr. Ivins, he's saying there was another attempt. Interesting. Again, this makes sense based on what we know occurred around 9/11 apart from the letters and explains why Cheney went to secure locations and carried around a bio hazard suit. Of course they called him a paranoid nut--but coming from the anointed reset administration we must now take them seriously.

That is, unless they are just trying to use this fear to get the right onboard with some kind of plan to neuter our deterrence capabilities on the world stage. This group is hard to read.

But it's doubtful this is all political spin--the threat has been real since before the Bush crew entered the White House. Perhaps Obama's recent hit order on our friend in Yemen Anwar Aulaqi makes more sense considering what the 9/11 Commission said about him:

33. On Anwar Aulaqi, see Wade A. interview (Oct. 16, 2003).The FBI investigated Aulaqi in 1999 and 2000 after learning that he may have been contacted by a possible procurement agent for Bin Ladin.

And just who did the commission identify as 'procurement agents for WMD'? These guys--both of whom were in the Sudan after 9/11. Both of whom were interviewed but not picked up. One of whom was last seen heading back to Iraq, who carries the same surname as the former head of Saddam's Revolutionary Command Council, who himself is number one on Iraq's new most wanted list and has been seen recently meeting with individuals in Yemen.

Obama's Nobel Donations

Obama announced the charity targets of his Nobel Prize money yesterday and appeared to choose wisely across the spectrum of needs, selecting military, humanitarian (Haiti), college funds, American Indians, East Asians, Hispanics, Hillbillies and Africans. Nothing to pick on, but there's also nothing earmarked for the health care industry, such as St. Jude's, Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic. Perhaps he couldn't give directly to them.

But never fear, Darth Cheney is here:

The Cheneys first donated $2.7 million in 2006 to establish their institute, which held its official ribbon-cutting ceremony in July 2007. Since then, Dick and Lynne Cheney have donated annually, upping the total amount of money to $3.5 million.

The Cheney Cardiovascular Institute focuses on heart research, education and community service, with one of its local projects focusing on placing external defibrillators in community gathering spots in all of D.C.'s wards.

"These devices are critical to saving lives of those suffering from sudden cardiac arrest," a spokesman for Cheney's office said in a statement.

Heartless bastard. Here's hoping the institute survives Obama Care.

Liz Cheney and the AQ 7 Stuff

Eugene Robinson might as well have called Liz Cheney a traitor:

If Cheney and her group object, they should prepare a blanket denunciation of the federal judiciary. Or maybe what they really don't like is that pesky old Constitution, with all its checks, balances and guarantees of due process. How inconvenient to live in a country that respects the rule of law.

Perhaps Robinson has lost track of the facts here or perhaps this was just his script for tonight's appearance on Olbermann. Whatever the case, he's slightly off track.

The beef here is not representation, it's whether the several lawyers who defended terrorists pro-bono at Gitmo (and who now have positions in the Justice Dept) were really advocates of the constitution or advocates of anything that would bash Cheney's father and his boss, and whether their selections represented a mindset of the administration.

Robinson has fun calling Cheney a partisan hack (which is a bit presumptuous based on his rep) yet he's apparently forgotten about all the hysteria surrounding detainee treatment and the effort from most of the left to make her father and Bush appear as monsters. The lawyers were part of that act.

That's not to say it was all an act. No serious person on the right believes these terrorists should not have at least some form of representation if they get locked up (remember, only terrorists running from hellfire missiles have no rights). Those who don't are non-serious. And is Liz Cheney's site political? Yep. Robinson is correct--they are pointing out Obama's approach to the man-caused disasters that have produced our Global Contingency Operation.

But Robinson is also playing politics here, grouping everyone into a box so he can bash them with a Cheney torture stick. Bernard Goldberg was on O'Reilly last night and put it this way--if a conservative president chose an Attorney General who then selected a bunch of lawyers who had just defended Ayrian Nation or KKK members pro-bono would the reaction be the same? From Robinson?

MORE 3/9/10

Thiessen had the op-ed yesterday, where he made the point that Yoo and Bybee were certainly not given respectful treatment by simply working for Justice and providing opinions. That's sort of a 'pointing to other bad behavior' argument, though.

The bottom line here is that accused terrorists should get representation; the act of representing them, even pro-bono, is a noble tradition of the US system; there is no tradition for giving legal representation to illegal combatants/those picked up on the battlefield during a war, especially when it's likely those persons would return to the battlefield (and this is an area where the commander-in-chief should have some authority); and the public deserves to know the backgrounds and duties of these lawyers as they fulfill their roles in the Justice Dept, especially if they are tasked with terrorism cases. I think Liz Cheney went too far in painting them as al Qaeda lawyers but on the flip side, the left always knew those lawyers were mainly there to bash Bush.

What Powell Also Said

Liberals were gloating Sunday when General Powell made news by seemingly going after Dick Cheney on the "we are less safe" thing. Here's the clip..


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Powell basically disagreed using boilerplate such as the CIA is still in place, TSA is still at the airport, military is surging in Afghan, etc, but failed to mention the lack of an interrogation program, which has been Cheney's main beef for a long time.

Matter of fact, Schieffer followed up by reminding Powell that even Democrats were critical of the Abdulmuttalob episode, to which he agreed, which seems to be an agreement with Cheney. Part of the mishandling was not having a functioning HIG interrogation group in place to take captured terrorists--because Obama canceled everything when he took office. So the headline could have been, "Powell Agrees with Cheney that Underwear Bomber was Mishandled". But it wasn't.

Something else-- he basically said Bush helped save the economy from a depression:

Let's remember at the time of the election the country was falling into a recession, our financial system was collapsing, we were in deep trouble, and as a result of some actions president Bush took with the TARP program before he left, and what president Obama has done, our financial situation has stabilized and our financial institutions are secure now, even though I'm not happy with everything they have done.

So the headline could have been, "Powell Disagrees with Obama on Who Saved Economy", but somehow it wasn't.

Actually, aside than the little bit of partisanship where he defended his Obama pick, his feeling that terrorists should get the same rights of a US citizen, and that Obama doesn't have socialist tendencies and that one man cannot change a government, quite a bit of what Powell said was sensible.

Fair and Balanced

Sometimes blogging requires a meal of one's own words. In my case, a comment in the previous KSM thread about Cheney's relative timidity on the trial coming to Manhattan and the whole terror-underbomber imbroglio in general. Darth will blast his way onto the Sunday shows today to discuss.

The specter of this apparently rings fear into some liberal hearts--Obama will send Joe Biden out to mess with his predecessor on TV while the leftosphere was busy Saturday evening working up their pre-emptive strikes. A couple of pundits were afraid the talking heads wouldn't ask the right questions, so they penned a few they hope will be asked.

HuffPo's Jason Linkins came up with several gotchas, some of them fairly decent. For instance, he uses this link to claim Cheney was hot to trot on trying Zacarias Moussaoui in federal court, and it looks that way, but the article goes on to explain why that wasn't a very good idea. So really, this is one Cheney could admit to being wrong about, and still be right.

He makes the comparison between Richard Reid and Abdulmichelob, who are exactly the same to liberals despite the time difference and protocols in place, but nevertheless this might elicit an interesting response. Personally I don't have a big issue with trying him in federal court, I have a big issue with them saying they had gotten all the intelligence possible within 50 minutes then reading him the same rights they'll one day read me when they get tired of all this.

Linkins then points to a Village Voice column containing a real cogent observation:

Afterward the disgraced former Vice President retired to his hyperbaric chamber to suck the blood out of a living infant.

Evil! Worse than Osama! That's followed by a joke about the guy Cheney accidentally shot.

Maureen Dowd of the Times was not to be outdone. Her strictly objective no-nonsense story was entitled "Icicles, Inside and Out", an imaginary conversation between Cheney, Obama, and Richard Robert Gates. Here's a zany outtake:

OBAMA: You keep saying there were no terror attacks after 9/11, Dick. That’s like saying that blimps were safe after the Hindenburg. I wouldn’t have been caught flat-footed reading “The Pet Goat” to second graders.

CHENEY: No, you’d have been teaching a graduate seminar on “The Pet Goat.” Don’t you Muslims eat pet goats?

Hard-hitting Times journalism! Imagine the worst boilerplate lefty war criticism from the Bush era and you can make up the rest without wasting the energy to click.

But in some respects they've got a point--the national media (including them) has shied away from asking the really hard-hitting questions of our political elite. So here's a suggestion for the next Obama interview..

Ask him about whether former Marxist and now Professor John Drew's memory of that little evening in San Francisco is correct, and about where he stands on Rawlsian social justice.

Then maybe ask him why he hasn't allowed anyone to see much from his Occidental and Columbia days. Inquire about Percy Sutton's claim that Khalid al-Mansour helped him into Harvard. Then about what was so private about that Rashid Khalidi tape the LA Times spiked. And how in the world Christopher Andersen could possibly claim that domestic washed up terrorist/neo-communist William Ayers ghost wrote "Dreams". And why no one asked Robert Gibbs about any of this.

Ask him if he continues to think his decision to not support the surge in Iraq was a good one based on events on the ground now, and whether he would now support it in hindsight after being in office and having the responsibility, or does he still think he would withdraw to the horizon. Perhaps the interviewer could include recent comments about the brewing success in Iraq made by the very same guy he's sending out today to slap Cheney around.

Ask him if anything attributed to him in "Game Change" is true. And whether Recovery.gov was worth 18 million or whether that was actually part of the Stimulus.

And finally on the underbomber, ask him if he really expects anyone to believe that Holder acted completely independently on the KSM decision, and why it's OK for al-Nashiri to be tried in a commission. And how KSM can get a fair trial after the leader of the free world has already declared him a dirty, filthy, guilty terrorist headed for hell.

Ya know, this honesty stuff could be pretty fun! Just think of it as 'media justice'.

MORE 2/14/10

Cheney on ABC. A very good, adult-like interview with Jonathan Karl. Cheney:

"If they are going to take credit for [Iraq], fair enough, for what they’ve done while they are there. But it ought to go with a healthy dose of ‘thank you George Bush’ up front," he said.

Darth also condemned Biden's comment about a low likelihood of more 9/11 style attacks, which he said would lower preparedness. In a pre-emptive response, Biden basically said they've already won the war:

"The reason it's unlikely is because we have been relentless," Biden said.

As mentioned previously, that's a pretty risky strategy, probably one designed to line up with the "terrorists are nuisance criminals" position of HolderBama, due in part to the political cancellation of most of BushCheney's terror tools.

But if there's less threat of a 9/11 style attack why are we currently surging and kicking ass in Afghanistan? Isn't it to stop terrorists from having a safe-haven (right next door to a nuclear Pakistan) to create more attacks, as Obama has said?
Isn't Biden's comment sort of like declaring 'mission accomplished'?

Cheney then caused massive head-explosions by tacitly supporting the repeal of DADT. As to KSM in New York, no surprises--he didn't want anyone released from Gitmo. Cheney must be a great poker player.

MORE BIDEN 2/14/10

Biden's comment about Iraq not being worth it is certainly his opinion- at least today. But while he's welcome to his own facts, he's not welcome to his own, ah, well here..

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

And from 2002:

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Keep in mind this was not entirely based on Bush's intelligence, since he'd been saying the same things before 2001. But that was then. Again from 2007, during his run for the presidency, addressing the comment above from 2002:

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

The problem with Biden--and the reason I can't help but like him--is that he can't control himself enough to keep from blubbering out some honesty every now and then.

MORE 2/14/10

From the WaPo analysis:

White House officials say they have been unmoved by criticism from Cheney, whom they note is one of least popular political figures in America.

That's their rebuttal? For real? Sounds appropriate--for ninth grade.

Cheney was Right

News out of the Mid South is that the jihadist who shot two military recruiters in Little Rock during the summer, killing one, has tried to plead guilty and acknowledge his AQ ties:

"I wasn't insane or post traumatic, nor was I forced to do this act," Muhammad claimed in the handwritten letter, the newspaper reported.

There were reports at the time that the FBI was monitoring him because he had visited Yemen, which ties the act pretty much directly to AQAP and/or Aulaqi, which occurred before Ft. Hood. Yet our Director of National Intelligence just did a headslap 'duh' the other day while trying to explain to Congress how Abdulmuttalob slipped the net--they weren't focused on the domestic threat from AQAP.

Aside from a clear case for firing the entire Obama national security staff or reorganizing the entire system, isn't it also clear that former VP Cheney was correct all along when he said Obama was 'making America less safe'? It's not nice to gloat, especially over serious matters, and Cheney probably won't, but he also took a lot of heat for stepping up. It would seem appropriate for someone in the media to take some note. Stories like this indicate the Bush approach to the problem was actually thoughtful and not as reckless as the current POTUS had assumed. The only thing reckless has been his failure to grasp reality.

The Pretenders

Cheney is becoming some kind of GOP jack-in-the-box.. popping out every time president Howdy Doody issues a less than meaningful statement or response regarding terror. The Politico covers the latest, so consider this a take on their take:

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists..

That's the setup. Now the snippets:

A senior Democrat said in response: “It’s telling that in attacking the president and the administration, that Vice President Cheney did not condemn the attack against our nation on Christmas Day.”

True, but it took Obama 3 days to publicly condemn it. He played golf instead.

..GOP officeholders have eschewed the customary partisan restraint following a terrorist incident and baldly portrayed Democrats as weak on security.

Good grief, they're mainly commenting on the lapse, as have some Democrats, as have many in the press, as has the president himself.

President George W. Bush was quieter for much longer about the attack by shoe bomber Richard Reid in December 2001.

Yes, but it's not as if Bush was out there after 9/11 downplaying the threat, calling for prisoners to be tried in court and badmouthing Clinton for leaving him a mess. The public was still reeling from 9/11--we knew we were at war then. Besides, the Dems constantly criticized Bush for not jumping on issues as they occurred like Clinton did.

The senior Democrat said: “There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference from the last administration is that we are at war with that which is tangible — Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists — rather than at war with a tactic, ‘terrorism’.”

Yeah, and how's that working out for us? How many people actually think there's much of a difference anyway? The teachable moment here is that words really don't matter with these guys.

“The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that’s something that this administration has failed to understand.”

Which seems to prove Cheney's point.

Cheney on Hannity

Darth was on Hannity's show, and was his usual splendidly blunt self. Here's his take on KSM coming to Manhattan, among other things..



The seminal moment was probably this:

Hannity: Do you think part of this is to put our CIA on trial; to put you on trial; to put president Bush on trial. Or maybe if it's not designed to do that, ultimately will that happen?

Cheney: (with sly smile) I don't know. I don't know if that's a motive for them or not. It could be. It could be that Holder expects to be able to use this to go back and sort of review in depth the Bush Cheney policies in terms of what we did in terms of to prevent attacks against the United States. I think that's a loser for them...

It's stunning that a former Vice President would even remotely consider the possibility of this. The idea alone suggests KSM (or the govt prosecution) would be expected to dump a whole lot of sensitive data out on the public to prime the pump since they would need a popular buy-in to proceed. That brings to mind Holder's comment about using evidence nobody else has seen before.

In possibly related news, the administration is arguing for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by terrorist Jose Padilla against former Justice Dept lawyer John Yoo over his findings on enhanced interrogation and confinement. Not because they believe he's necessarily innocent, but because they think any punishment would be more appropriate coming through the Justice department or the bar as opposed to advocacy cases in the courts.

This same premise basically holds true for all federal employees regarding judgment calls so it's not surprising they didn't want the precedent going forward. It does seem to put Yoo back in the hands of Holder, though.

Cheney and the Bow

Obama's presumed bow to the Japanese emperor, and I say presumed because Gibbs hasn't weighed on whether he might have lost a contact lens or something, made the silly news of this slow news weekend.



Here's another compilation showing past protocol. My take is that our first Pacific president is not an idiot--he's doing this purposely to make a statement about how he perceives American exceptionalism. In other words, it's an apology bow.

All this led to some fun by the Fox panel regards Dick Cheney's non bow. But are they sure she wasn't referring to herself?

Cheney Docs

The Cheney FBI 302 interview file is out and contains some insight along with a few Cheneyisms. Here's one, from very early in the interview:

His initial reaction to the Wilson article was that it was 'amateur hour' out at the CIA

Some pages later he recollects the period between the Wilson NY Times column on July 6 and Novak's earth-shaking column on July 14:

He does recall at one point 'gigging' Tenet and/or McGlaughlin about vetting a separate, and entirely unrelated intelligence matter by sarcastically suggesting to them that perhaps they ought to send Joe Wilson to check it out.

No wonder so many people in the CIA probably hated this guy. Here's another gem, from a question regards the crucial lunch meeting between Ari Fleischer and Libby, a compelling point during trial:

He is not aware of any lunch meetings or discussions between Ari Fleischer and Scooter Libby, but it would not surprise him if they had been to lunch together at some time during Fleischer's White House tenure.

As to insight, it's pretty clear from this reading that Cheney wasn't throwing Libby many life lines while busy saving himself. It would be interesting to hear Scooter's opinion on this.

But that's losing the big picture. Whatever Darth said or didn't say is largely irrelevant in regards to the raison d'etre for all things Plame. Had what Wilson didn't find in Africa been so important he could have been leaked it BEFORE the invasion. By waiting until nothing turned up the entire thing came off as a political stunt to help deflect blame away from CIA and the mainstream media while helping to elect Kerry, which actually succeeded well beyond Cheney's 'amateur hour' description (he needs to stay away from predictions).

Anyone following the case objectively knows that Wilson tried to mislead by suggesting he was sent to Africa at the "behest" of the OVP, who then ignored his findings in the rush to war. In truth the CIA analysts who did see his 'widely disseminated' out-brief were more convinced than ever Saddam had clandestine nuclear aspirations, which probably answers the question of why it wasn't leaked pre-war. All of this led to a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that produced a collective "you lie" to Joe Wilson. That should have been the end of it.

But it lingers. Some on the left haven't yet given up on impeachment, but in truth the true truth may never come out. Cheney's writing a book but how far he chooses to go in this area is anyone's bet, and even he mentions it many won't believe him and besides, his testimony here was a testament to the game-playing, butt-covering nature of Washington.

As to the current crew, it's highly doubtful Obama will wade into this territory due to the blowback potential. They'd rather have foreigners do it (whilst going for a new shield law) and dither around with torture, at least until it becomes unproductive. Meanwhile, the Plameologists will keep waiting and hoping that someone catches some spilled truth one day, like the little balloon boy on CNN.

Friday Dumparama

It was certainly a good day for dumping. Documents, that is. Two items hit the late news wires--the released White House visitor logs and the Cheney FBI interview (about Valerie Plame). Oh, and of course that other trivial thing earlier in the day. Feel free to question the timing.

The logs are interesting but the Cheney interview will more distract the lefty beast. Darth used the ole "I do not recall" weasel answer a lot in his FBI interview, which lawyers instruct clients to use when faced with a formidable question where anything less than a perfect recall can spell trouble (or if they want to lie, whichever). So the left will have their field day.

Oh, and of course we can all count on the Obama-approved AP to not mention Richard Armitage again.....


Firefox's control-F function is so neat! But hey, Joe the VP called Cheney "irrelevant" today so it's time to move on, Firedoglake.

As to the visitor logs, a ticklish subject since administrations should be able to get unvarnished advice from people without the worry of a news story (and wild speculation) the next day. Even today there was wild speculation. HuffPo was initially in a huff about the list, which showed a bunch of names that sounded like CEOs from Wall St. while the right was ripped about people named Bill Ayers, Malik Shabazz, Rev Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and Michael Jordan. Well, nobody was really ripped about MJ, just curious.

Allahpartypooper was quick to shoot down any Friday fun with this--according to the White House there are false positives--people with the same names as the famous folks who were just there on tours but got swept up in the request. The White House site seems to back up that explanation, with the Ayers name part of a group of 220+ people on a tour. Or maybe that's how they had to get him in, then he snuck away from the group later! Just kidding, of course, apparently like Christopher Andersen's book. Ayers hardly knew Obama and he was forced to launch O's career in his living room.

But there are no mistakes about SEIU Andy Stern and John "Center for American Progress" Podesta (and his lobbyist family). Speaking of CAP, no hits for anyone visiting Van Jones either.

MORE 10/30/09

The dump was bigger than I gave it credit. Also included were the Stimulus jobs 'saved or created' (the corniest political stunt in the history of stunts but accepted by the Obama -approved media) and another instance of the administration invoking State Secrets. It's interesting that after the Zazi arrest (and several others) the TSP program is suddenly not so draconian under the new owners.

Sighs of Relief

Remember this from the campaign:



National Security Advisor James Jones apparently has heard sighs and has been keeping score:

Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.), told ABC News in an exclusive interview that actually the reverse is true: President Obama’s greater success with international relations has meant more terrorists put out of commission.

Really? Must be a scoreboard somewhere in one of those alphabet command centers. Here's the reason:

“The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international."

Which is the same thing Obama promised last year, which is a noble goal. But has it worked already? Is it prudent to suggest such a thing?

For instance, if we had a scoreboard it might show that the worst nuclear proliferator of all time, A.Q. Khan, is now Scot-free. Scotland pardoned the Pan Am 103 bomber, which was a slap in our face, and the Uighurs are now chilling on tropical islands my family will probably never be able to afford to visit.

Bettulah Meshud was dusted but the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan and got dangerously close to reaching Islamabad just a few months ago. We are still waiting for those NATO reinforcements to arrive in Afghanistan that were supposed to materialize due to the overflowing good will. Oh well, maybe Germany, France and Spain are still sighing.

Meanwhile the Baathists recently tried to repeat the Golden Mosque attack in Iraq while Syria has yet to feel enough love to give up some of the insurgency captains undoubtedly hiding there. At last check Raghad Saddam Hussein was still evading capture in broad daylight down in Jordan.

On the global seas (which Obama is lowering) several mysterious ships have been wandering around with mysterious cargo doing mysterious things. The North Koreans have shown no signs of stopping their missile play and a corrupt election came and went in Iran with little if any international consequences, leaving Israel to wonder. India told us to pound sand on carbon taxes and the administration has been busy trying to put Chavez-Lite back into power in Honduras.

Back home we're still fighting amongst ourselves regarding who is more evil, Dick Cheney (for wanting to stick a water hose down a terrorists' nose) or the actual terrorists themselves, who've been maltreated and abused, according to them and their lawyers, several of whom are associated with the new Attorney General. Obama has said he wants to look forward not back, which apparently means he's looking forward to the prosecutions.

So as to the actual sighs of relief it's hard to tell. It certainly appears the bad guys have.