home

Why Cheney Approved Of Torture

So that he could keep saying this:

We decided to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists . . . We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists. . . .

We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

(Emphasis supplied.) Cheney approved of torture not because it helped to combat terrorism - it not only does not work, it foments terrorism - he approves of it because it allowed him to foment the Iraq Debacle. Funny how the Iraq Debacle was not mentioned in his speech today.

Speaking for me only

< Obama's National Security Speech | Another NY AG Takes On Prostitution (And This Time, Craigslist) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Cheney still want to be his own (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    branch of government. Much better this way, where he is not subject to elections. No doubt in my mind he is still influencing many, and not just in his own party.

    I want to see Dems rebut him often and forcefully, and say on TV, in venues that people actually watch, like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC that Cheney used torture to find justification for getting us into the Iraq war. Let's have that discussion instead of his lies and red herrings. If we won't prosecute him in the courts, we can at least make sure everyone hears the truth in other ways.

    Let's see, when was the last time I saw Dems do what I want?  Trying to remember....

    Did you check out the CNN picture? (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:07:03 PM EST
    Whoa, what a ugly picture of Chenney on CNN.com. He is growling and his eyes are red. He looks like the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood. So if pictures are worth a thousand words, he looks like a caged animal. I was so hoping he was going to go away in 2009. Instead, two on my worse list are raising their ugly heads. Newt and Dick. I think Dick is fighting for his posterior and using a good defense is a good offense. He gives me the shivers on a hot day.  

    Dang that Saddam... (none / 0) (#1)
    by of1000Kings on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    giving those terrorists imaginary WMD...

    they're just as dangerous as real WMD, if you believe in them...

    He doesn't want to be prosecuted (none / 0) (#2)
    by BruceM on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    Cheney is defending torture because he is afraid of being prosecuted by the Obama administration for committing acts of torture, just like he'd prosecute Obama if the situation were reversed (Cheney should know Obama is too spineless and ball-less to prosecute any Bush administrationi officials).

    It doesn't matter if torture works.  That's not the point.  We should not torture people.  As I've said, it is worth the lives of 10,000 dead, bloody, charred, mangled American babies - who suffered horrible painful deaths, their screams and cries heard for miles - for us to not be a nation that tortures people.  Unfortunately few others seem willing to be as blunt as I am.

    Cheney (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:41:19 PM EST
    (Cheney should know Obama is too spineless and ball-less to prosecute any Bush administrationi officials).

    Yep, Republicans got the double-whammy with this one...Democrats are too spineless and ball-less AND they can own this economy, which everyone knew would be a debacle for the next 4-8 years.

    And of course, the media is owned by Republican-factions too....I firmly believe that if the media wanted Republicans in power, Republicans would be in power...this whole thing of the "weakened Republicans" is BS.  If they were so weak, why would Democrats be so willing to cow-tow to them?  They'll be quite apparently strong again soon, and the spinelessness and ball-lessness of the Democrats will be highlighted well to ensure we won't have Democrats again for a long time.

    (And yes, I own stock in tin foil).

    Parent

    Pass me some (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    ...of your aluminum foil, Teresa, because I've been wondering what the hell Dick and George found out about whom with all that warrantless wiretapping.  Do they have unsavory information about many of the Democrats (and Republicans, too) that they threatened to make public?  Nancy, Harry, what did they have on you to make you take "impeachment off the table" and roll over for so much of the Republican agenda?  Why are so many Dems still spineless?  (I'll go sit in the corner quietly now, as I fashion my stylish foil chapeau.)  

    Parent
    why they're spineless (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BruceM on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:35:06 PM EST
    They're spineless because the argument of the republicans about how to protect america is easier for idiot morons to understand than the argument of the democrats.

    For people who spend their days watching "24" and "The Closer" it's easier to understand torturing a dark-skinned, suspected terrorist with a foreign accent to protect America (and the children).  The democrat's position, that torture is morally wrong and that it doesn't work (it sure works on 24 when Jack Bauer does it) and that the effect is to generate more anti-American hostility takes a higher degree of mentation and critical thinking to understand.  Underlying all of this is the contest about which stragety (torture or no torture) will protect us best, and nobody wants to be in the position of having a terrorist attack and being held responsible for it.

    Insofar as the Bush/Cheney position involves affirmative action (torture) and the Democrat position involves negative action (no torture), if (when) there IS another terrorist attack on American soil, the republicans can always say "they did everything" to stop it if their plan is in effect, while the Democrats cannot - the Republicans will say they could have tortured to get info to stop that terrorist attack.

    In a country full of morons, it's political suicide to have a nuanced position that requires people to follow more than one step of cause and effect to comprehend.  Such "one-step" positions are the bread and butter of the Republican-Christian Party.  If we do X, then Y will happen.  But the Democrats, with their more intelligent positions, focus on what happens from Y and whether ot not Y really will result from doing X.  

    People are stupid and most can't follow anything beyond "if I get a tax cut I'll have more money" (those are the Republican-Christians).

    But the democrats are in power and it really doesn't matter if the idiots understand their plans or not.  Just DO THEM.  And fight the way the Republican-Christian party does.  Could you imagine what would have happened to the Democrats if 9-11 happened on Al Gore's watch?  Jesus Christ it would be the end of Gore - he'd be impeached by the Republicans and democrats wouldn't be able to win so much as a school board election ever again.  

    Parent

    mendacity (none / 0) (#5)
    by tworivers on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    Cheney's mendacity would be almost comical if what he said wasn't taken so seriously by the MSM.

    This is a person who creates a reality that fits in with his predetermined worldview/philosophy with no regard whatsoever for the facts on the ground. The facts on the ground become malleable in his world - anything that supports his previously arrived at conclusion (including facts that have been cherrypicked/manipulated) is highlighted, and anything that goes against it is shunted off to the side if not suppressed.

    This is a man who had his underlings whisper off the record to NY Times columnists about aluminum tubes, and then went on TV talk shows a few days later and claimed the resulting article in the NY Times as proof of the danger Hussein posed to the US.  

    He is a sociopath, in other words.

    What I'm wondering is, why does he still have a platform from which to spew his deceptions?  At this point, why does anyone take anything he has to say seriously at all?  He should be a joke and a laughing stock.  

    And at the very least, why isn't the MSM doing a better job of fact-checking someone who has been proven time and time again to be an inveterate  liar?

    He is a character (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    and a good story. Why check facts? That stopped mattering long ago. It is all about the story they can tell.

    Parent
    He is *still* obsessed by Saddam (none / 0) (#6)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    That man needs help.

    Actually, he's probably beyond help.


    seriously (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    at least Osama is still allegedly still alive.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Zorba on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    ....or maybe not.  Benazir Bhutto seemed to believe that Osama was dead.  If he is dead, it serves the purposes of both al Qaeda and the United States to pretend that he's alive.

    Parent
    It was clear to me (none / 0) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:51:37 PM EST
    that Bhutto was alleging no such thing, and merely made a slip of the tongue.

    Bhutto understood the importance of Osama's status to the West, if she knew something she wouldn't have just tossed it out as a random offhanded comment without even a change in facial expression.

    Parent

    Perhaps she just forgot the West (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 21, 2009 at 05:08:20 PM EST
    hadn't been told and didn't realize she was letting the cat out of the bag.

    Parent
    It's possible (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    but I find that this particular set of theories requires us to assume that Benazir Bhutto was a really, really stupid woman, which I don't think she was.

    It's not like everyone in the other hemisphere knows that of course he's dead and word just hasn't gotten around to our side of the world.  It's the 21st century.  If Osama was known to be dead, we'd know it as well.

    Parent

    Dialysis - kidney (none / 0) (#24)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:25:15 PM EST
    Osama was supposedly on it in 2001. Know anyone who can live in caves and hideouts for 8 years with CKD?

    Bhutto's interview was for AlJazeerah TV as I recall.

    Parent

    I see three possibilities (none / 0) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:36:06 PM EST
    1. We don't really know for sure whether Osama is dead or alive;

    2. We know Osama is dead, but there is a massive conspiracy at the highest levels of government to pretend like we don't know;

    3. Osama is actually dead, but no one at the highest levels of government is smart enough to think of the argument you just presented.

    Suggestions of other scenarios are welcome.

    Parent
    Isn't Cheney in the ground yet? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    i really need a grave to piss on.

    seriously (or more seriously), the guy is announcing for all to hear that he is guilty and damn proud of it.  and it makes about as much of a meaningful ripple in the MSM to sink a blad of grass.  Maybe.  

    Cheney's speech is simply a ruse (none / 0) (#9)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:13:40 PM EST
    to distract from Obama's speech. The GOP stole the news cycle once again.  The left wing news & blogs will focus on Obama's speech, while Faux News and winger talk radio & blogs will rehash Cheney's words instead, along with talking heads analyzing (er, cough, supporting) Cheney's perspective.

    We have a serious media problem. Our side hears mostly what we want to hear, the right wing hears mostly what bolsters their opinions.

    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Zorba on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:53:08 PM EST
    didn't so much "steal" the news cycle, because the MSM and the talk shows already gave them the news cycle.  You don't have to steal what you already own.

    Parent
    Can't really understand (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:48:50 PM EST
    how what you just said adds up to "the GOP stole the news cycle."  Because right-wing sources spread right-wing propaganda, the GOP wins?  Uh, whatever.

    Parent
    Actually Cheney's speech was scheduled before (none / 0) (#20)
    by ChiTownMike on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    Obama's:

    The White House announced Thursday's speech last week shortly after news surfaced that Cheney was planning his. Aides scheduled it for the hour just before the former vice president's planned appearance at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think thank.

    The aim was to rebut Cheney's campaign with all the power of the presidency -- not only Obama's singular rhetorical skills but also the ability of any White House to apply nearly unlimited resources to event-staging.

    But it also had the effect of elevating Cheney even more, to equal billing in television shows, Webcasts and newspapers.



    Parent
    So who was the real president (none / 0) (#13)
    by Saul on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    Cheney or Bush?

    I think it's pretty clear now (none / 0) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:57:14 PM EST
    that it was Cheney, at least on the foreign policy/national security stuff. Bush still got him in the end by refusing to pardon Cheney's BFF Scooter Libby.  Have to wonder whether some of that nasty oedipal stuff ultimately got transferred onto Cheney.

    Parent
    The real answer to why Cheney approved (none / 0) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    torture probably lies somewhere deep in his clearly damaged psyche; God knows what else lurks there - that a predilection for and interest in the torture of other human beings is what we actually see, what we don't probably defies description.

    The simpler answer is because he set up a system that allowed him to - a closed loop that guaranteed that whatever he wanted to do, there was someone to approve it, and little oversight to prevent it.  The scary thing - as if torture itself is not scary enough - is that all that power was just allowed to stay resident in the executive branch, and we now have to hope that whoever is wielding it is inclined to be benevolent and not malevolent.  Hope is not, however, much of a plan.

    So, is Cheney helping or hurting?  Guess it depends on what your tolerance for pain is.  I don't think it helps the cause of the American values, about which Obama waxes poetic, to have the former VP and torture-maven extraordinaire publicly, or via ubiquitous sources, express his pleasure with some of Obama's decisions.  

    And it can't be good when someone who professed to wanting transparency and accountability as a candidate is now, as president, on the same page with Dick Cheney, who also doesn't think we need to revisit the decisions of the last eight years.  Obama should not even want to be in the Library of Congress with Dick Cheney, much less on the same page.

    It's so disheartening: Obama is a mile long and an inch deep, making pretty speeches that upon review and dissection, prove to be meaningless to achieving real change, real reform, real commitment to our values, and Dick Cheney is evil from the ends of his gray hairs to the marrow of his bones - and much of America is just nodding along, saying, "yeah, okay, whatever."


    History of CIA Torture (none / 0) (#25)
    by Lora on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:33:18 PM EST
    By Ernest A. Canning, at the Brad Blog:

    Part 1: Unraveling the Web of Deceit

    Part 2: Dark Beginnings

    Part 3: Component of Empire

    Part 4 yet to come.

    Most interesting in a sickening sort of way.  Worth the read.