The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get. Cheney and Co. hotly dispute the notion that the "enhanced interrogation methods" that he pioneered are a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Deny it all you want, but it is the truth. How little you truly understand our enemy if you think they don't benefit from our mistakes and study our weaknesses. 9/11 was a textbook case of imaginative crazies using the tools of a more advanced civilization against it. Cheney, according to you, it is unacceptable for anyone to argue that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib "excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It's another version of that same old refrain from the Left: We brought it on ourselves." Hmmm.
Such twisted logic. Dick, those who argue against the torture techniques that you developed are arguing out of pragmatism, the same logic that you practiced in devising those techniques. You argue FOR it because you say that it saved lives. The evidence on your side is flimsy: you argue that the absence of a second 9/11 is proof positive that the torture got results. Hard to prove a negative, Dick. I am not aware that Bin Laden actually had a "second act" lined up to follow his first one. Pretty soon he was kept pretty busy getting out of Afghanistan- which is quite unrelated to the torture thing, as any President even Warren G. Harding would have been politically unable to leave Osama in Kabul. Actually a competent White House might have actually CAUGHT Bin Laden, but no use to discussing that at this point. But the point remains that both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, according to FBI and military interrogaters and terrorism experts, have been a factor in coaxing younger jihadists to step into the empty shoes of those we kill. In essence, your use of Torture gives aid and comfort to the enemy, by allowing them to rationalize their hatreds of us. Nobody is trying to excuse 9/11, Dick. Nobody is trying to argue that Al Qaeda has the moral high ground. We are just arguing that it was foolish for practical reasons to chose to imitate their methods. You are trying to portray us as sympathetic to Al Qaeda, but that's not it. It's more that we despise the obstinate dishonesty and historical revisionism that you represent, that's all.
Seen any WMDs this week, Cheney?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
Nah, he hasnt. But I cant wait to see if there will be a debate between him and Obama. Oil and water have more in common and with Cheney's experience...I think he will eat Obama alive. It would be interesting though.
~M
I don't see a reason why Obama would wish to debate Cheney. Is Cheney planning to run in 2012?
Cheyney should get the hell out of the picture, he ran things from his hidden alcoves behind Bush all those years, why come out now!
no attacks since 9-11 since they implemented torture tecniques? No vampires since we keep garlic is the same thing!
No, I'm afraid your wrong. We've got garlic but we've still got Cheney.
LOL Scot. You know the old expression "I keep it to keep vampires away" "But there are no vampires!" "See! It works!"
Why was their an attack on 9/11 being that Bush was informed about bin Laden and the CIA through his transition and why did the Bush gang plan to attack Iraq before the chimp was placed in office by his daddy's supreme court? Also bin Laden is close enough to the chimp to be a relative.
Anyone who has half a clue should know better not to listen to that @$$hole. Bush, at the end of his term, had the lowest approval rating of any president since Hoover, and Cheney's was much lower than Bush's. That did not happen by accident, and it took 8 years to come to pass. Bottom line: he's useless to anyone who has at least half of a brain.
No attacks since 9/ll is "proof" of nothing.
"Enhanced interrogation methods" is an idiotic euphemism for "torture."
(Remember "Comfort stations" at interstate rest stops for "Toilets.")
Cheney, please keep helping to destroy you party. Many thanks!
Ahhh, good point Leo!
Chris W.,
"evidence on your side is flimsy: you argue that the absence of a second 9/11 is proof positive that the torture got results." Are you suggesting as some in the media and some politicians have that the information gathered from these methods had no value? There is quote I believe, "everyone talks".
As far as the recruiting tool, I wonder how the terrorists were able to recruit before Cheney did all this work?
All manner of things can be used to recruit, it is the individual who decides what is important to them, and if you believe that the "torture" and Abu Ghraib are the only reasons there is still fighting going on in Iraq or the Middle East then you may want to do a bit more reading.
As far as catching Bin Laden, I really don't think that the White House was directing the search or made decisions, as previous a Administration did, that prevented his capture.
I wonder if you have ever been in the situation of choosing between what you preferred over what you felt was necessary.
Have you ever tried to play the "what if" with the lives of friends and family? What choice would you make if it was to save those you loved while sacrificing those trying to destroy them?
Hindsight is always 20/20, especially when your actions don't carry any consequences.
Personally, I try to learn from history not condemn people for living it.
Our President Obama has said those practices are done. I accept that and move on because no matter what we do we can't change what was done.
I would have been surprised if the political haranguing, the release of memos, and the willingness to formally release more photos hadn't all happened that Cheney would have had no reason to speak out or that he wouldn't have found a sympathetic audience. However, our current leaders saw more value in flagellating the past then learning from it and moving on.
What a better way to get more support for Al Qaeda than showing to people in the Middle East the torture photos from American prisons as well as the photos of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan murdered by the US forces?!