Send Him Back to the Bunker! Dick Cheney's dishonest speech about torture, terror, and Obama.
Posted Thursday, May 21, 2009, at 6:36 PM ETWhy does anyone still listen to what Dick Cheney has to say?
This morning's back-to-back speeches on torture and terrorism—first by President Barack Obama, then by the former vice president—could have been an opportunity to weigh competing arguments, examine their premises, and chart an agenda for a serious debate.
Obama's speech did exactly that. He spelled out his logic, backed up his talking points with facts, and put forth a policy grounded—at least in his view—not just in lofty ideals but also in hardheaded assessments of national security. Those who disagree with his conclusions could come away at least knowing where their paths diverged—what claims they'd need to challenge in mounting their opposition.
Cheney, on the other hand, built a case on straw men, red herrings, and lies. In short, his speech was classic Dick Cheney, with all the familiar scowls and scorn intact. The Manichean worldview, which Cheney advanced and enforced while in office, was on full display. After justifying "enhanced interrogation methods," as part of the Bush administration's "comprehensive strategy" in the wake of 9/11—and noting that the next seven and a half years saw no follow-on attack—he said this:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event … and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.
This is a blatant evasion. The debate—or one of the debates—is, in fact, over whether or not the war on terror required "tough interrogations," as Cheney called them. Does he believe—should anyone else believe—that removing one chunk of this strategy would cause the whole edifice to topple? If these interrogations are so essential, why did President Bush stop them in 2004? And why haven't we been attacked since?
Cheney's evasiveness is more basic than this. He still refuses to acknowledge what nearly everyone else has: that these interrogations did amount to torture. "Torture was never permitted," he said, even while conceding the occasional water-boarding. These methods, he noted, "were given careful legal review before they were approved"—ignoring that these legal reviews were conducted by his own aides and have since been discredited almost uniformly.
Still, he persists. To call this program "torture," he went on, "is to libel the dedicated professionals"—the "carefully chosen" CIA personnel who conducted the interrogations—"and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims." Of course, it does no such thing. Most of the criticisms, including President Obama's, have been directed at the Bush administration's top policymakers, not at those who carried out their orders. And nobody is claiming that the subjects of interrogation were "victims," much less "innocent." To decry torture does not imply the slightest sympathy for the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Cheney then dismissed the idea—hardly Obama's alone—that the interrogation policies and the detention operations at Guantanamo have served as a "recruitment tool" for al-Qaida and other terrorists. This claim, he said, "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."
This is nonsense on a few levels. Nobody is claiming that Osama Bin Laden and his crew would go away if we treated prisoners more nicely. However, it is indisputable that the reports of torture, the photos from Abu Ghraib, and the legal limbo at Guantanamo have galvanized al-Qaida's recruitment campaigns. Everyone acknowledges this, hardly just "the Left." It's why many Republicans lamented the news stories and the photographs—because they might help the enemy.
Cheney's next volley against Obama—for releasing the Bush administration's legal documents that justified water-boarding and other harsh practices—was where the outright lying began. "President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation, should he deem it appropriate," Cheney said. Yet, this authority would have little use because, thanks to the release of the documents, "the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against."
This argument might make sense, except that Obama has not reserved the right to use enhanced interrogation. In fact, he has explicitly, repeatedly, and unconditionally banned the practice. In his speech this morning, Obama said there was no security risk in releasing the Bush documents precisely because they no longer reflect U.S. policy.
AP Video: Cheney to Obama: No Compromise
PRINT
E-MAIL
RECOMMEND...
RSS
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
OBAMA = ETHOS: Ethos (Credibility), or ethical appeal, means convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making author into an authority on a subject , as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect. This type of argument requires that you establish yourself as trustworthy and respectful of the audience. You do this by demonstrating that you have taken the time to research your topic, which establishes your credibility on the subject.
CHENEY = PATHOS: Pathos (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions and basic needs. Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can be effectively used to enhance an argument. This is when you appeal to the emotions of your audience by describing in detail the effect of a particular situation. You should try to arouse a sense of pity, anger, fear, or other emotion in your audience. Criticism of rhetoric tends to focus on the overemphasis of pathos, emotion, at the expense of ethos, the message.
-- akarmin
(To reply, click here)
Ibn Shaykh Al Libi - does that name ring a bell?
This individual was snatched-up in Pakistan having fled the Spin Ghar mountains, in Afghanistan (Tora Bora), in late 2001. After initially interrogated by the U.S., he was turned over to Egypt for further "questioning," possibly involving enhanced methods of interrogation - certainly not torture, because Egypt denies that.....yes, they do!
It seems Al Libi provided information that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons production capacity and al-Qaeda. And as everyone should recall, this was cited to justify our run-up to invading Iraq. President Bush himself used this information in a speech, and Colin Powell, also noted this information among the amateurish evidence he presented to the U.N., despite concerns from some American intelligence officers that al Libi was feeding information he wanted us to hear (perhaps someone specifically wanted to hear?). al-Libi later recanted stating he had been tortured. It would seem the information he gave turned out to be false, as some in the intelligence community suspected, since no WMDs were found in Iraq.
President Obama has stated the U.S. does not and will not use torture, which I personally believe is the right path. But he also, interestingly enough, has not ruled-out the use of extraordinary renditions, which could mean taking prisoners/detainees to countries that might use torture.
I once was tasked on the Fray for saying we should move on - I now recant, and say it's too late for that, and we need to get all the information out for the American public to see, before the next terrorist attack on American soil, or we go to war based on bad and/or phony intelligence.
-- Tyrtaios-rising
(To reply, click here)