UPDATE from Dan: Geez, Nick, have you been reading my mind? I too have criticized the former Vice President, but, after reading excerpts of the speech, started to wonder today as I drove to the Reagan Library if maybe I had been wrong to do so.
As many of you know, I took pretty direct objection to the former Vice President’s tone, and even his choice to speak out at all since leaving office.
That notwithstanding, I just finished reading his speech today in front of the American Enterprise Institute that the press in their tireless effort to bring about understanding and respect for the truth simply categorizes as a salvo between him and the current president. Of course it’s all gamesmanship to them.
I am immeasurably impressed with not only the measured tone, but also the gentlemanly choice of words and respect shown to the current president. (No, I’m not going to say “as opposed to how the current president treats him.” I think, frankly, Obama, while acting childish and coming up with all reasons possible to deflect responsibility for his own decisions, has at least been cordial with the men who came before him.) His criticisms, nevertheless, are as biting as they are completely spot-on.
Click the above link for the whole speech (recommended) or see the best parts after the jump:
Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem, with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.
One gets the impression from hearing the current president speak that he, like his penultimate predecessor, views this as some sort of criminal event. That may explain why he’s so eager to veiw harsh interrogation as some sort of vendictive or malevolent thing, carried out against bad people for something they’ve done, rather than as a preventive measure used to derive valuable information. Alas, I’m stealing Cheney’s thunder:
The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Lest we forget, we were all on board at one point.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn’t serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.
By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public’s right to know. We’re informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.
Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.
Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
MONEY QUOTE:
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it 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.”
It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.
As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.
The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.
…and here’s something you’re not likely to ever hear in the old-school media’s coverage of the speech, I imagine:
President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.
And here’s a little gauntlet throwing-down:
As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.
I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn’t change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.” End of quote.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot) from an Undisclosed Alternate HQ
Minor point, but friends don’t let friends use “money quote”. It is a term popularized by Andrew Sullivan and (if that isn’t enough) a pun on the sleazy pornographic expression “money shot”.
“Key quote” or “Key point” should cover your usage here.
I read both speeches today and still have not SEEN them. But it is clear that Cheney gave the best speech that George W. Bush never did.
And it is clear that we now have our first September 10th President.
we on the left side love it that dick cheney is the gop spokesperson. along with limbaugh and newt, it’s the perfect trifecta to keep that nasty political party in semi-permanent minority status.
it’s going to be a LONG, LONG decade for the right. but, you deserve it richly.
buckeye:
As much as you may enjoy basking in the glow of your electoral victory (the importance of which I won’t bother to compare to national security), I wonder if you can pause for a moment and actually refute or even counter intellectually any of the former VP’s words.
Or do you not have a point to make?
CP,
buckeye has a point. It’s on top of his head.
And let me appologize on behalf of the state for him.
I’ll bet if this situation was reversed, you’d be all over a former democratic VP for being disrespectful to the current President of the US.
Of course Cheney has never been known for civility.
Kevin:
Sometimes I wonder if guys like you and levi ever really read the posts before you reply. It really deminishes your argument when we have to point to the very post you’re commenting on to rebut your comment.
If you’d read my post, you’d have found the link to where I did criticize Cheney. For crying out loud, are you even trying?
I don’t know why you think Cheney shouldn’t be speaking out. Under normal circumstances, I’m sure he wouldn’t, but with this egomaniacal man child who is in over his head in office, making senseless, classless and dangerous political decisions of national security, thank God Cheney did speak out. Obama releasing interrogation info, but not releasing the effects of that interrogation, first he wants to release the photos, then he doesn’t, talking about the possibility of bringing up charges just to act magnanimous by saying let’s let the past be the past and move on. Disgraceful man Obama. Go Cheney!
I haven’t read or seen either speech, and this was the biggest chunk of either of them I’ve seen so far (and thanks for that!), but it’s hilarious how apoplectic and positively hysterical people have been today over Cheney’s speech. If it’s not a big deal, dear little lefties, then why are you hyper-ventilating over it? I thought dissent was the highest form of patriotism. 😛
Man, Nick, I intended not to read either speech–I’ve been blissfully ignoring the news recently because of exams–but after this post, I’m going to have to check them out. (Or at least Cheney’s.)
Yeah. No offense, and no big deal. I mean, there’s “slightly wrong” and then there’s “Kevin-wrong”, heh.
I said before that Democrats long ago threw the “former administrations don’t criticize current administrations” tradition out the window. Carter has criticized every president since his disastrous presidency including Clinton, with the exception of Barack Obama who is like Carter on crack.
*ucknut,
I dont know why “you on the left” would love Cheney’s criticisms. Polls show most Americans agree with him on waterboarding and disagree with Democrats. The more Cheney speaks the more his poll numbers go up, while Democrats have done nothing but go down in the polls since the election. Nancy Pelosi is so unpopular for her blatant lies that she has had to flee the country twice now, Harry Reid is deeply unpopular, especially in his home state, where polls show he has very slim chances of being re-elected. And as I showed you before, whatever favorability advantage Democrats had, they have entirely destroyed in the few months they have been in power. Indeed, take into consideration the poll bias (these same polls gave Democrats higher party ID than Republicans prior to their losses in 2000, 2002 and 2004), and the fact that Republicans are dead-even in party ID now indicates even bigger losses for Democrats this time around.
In other words, don’t get comfortable in the majority. Americans dont like you there. When you held the majority in the beginning of Clintons term, Americans threw you out as soon as they could. When Democrats briefly gained control of the Senate when Jim Jeffords switched parties, Americans threw you back out again the very next chance they had. And all signs are showing that now that Americans are starting to understand what Democrat policy means, they cant wait to throw you back out again.
Funny that you think Republicans are in trouble when they have pulled even in Party ID, Democrats have lost ground, when Americans are already ready to put Republicans back in power after only a few months of Democrat rule, when your speaker is so unpopular she has to flee the country and your senate leader is about to be tossed out on his ass.
Oh and by the way, despite the constant propaganda about how much everyone supposedly loves Obama, less than 25% of Americans are willing to say they will vote for him again in 2012. That’s not even your base!
I would think that Dick Cheney running around giving policy speeches while George Bush remains in hiding would be hugely embarrassing for the Republicans. Can there be any further doubt that Bush was nothing but a hollow figurehead being manipulated by this guy? Way to pick ’em, Republicans.
Levi,
Oh, wait, I was about to make a snarky comment, but then I remembered. ex-presidents retiring and being graceful is a trait he’s not familiar with, since history for him started Jan 20, 2001.
So we deserve MASSIVE debt, MASSIVE unemployment, the most absurd energy policy imaginable, government take over of private businesses, government condemning private property owners to Hell, government demands for thousands of American deaths in exchange for CAFE standards etc. etc. etc.?
Tell me, what did Americans do to deserve that?
Let’s see, Il Douche refused to release ANY information about his background, refused to provide his health information, refused to provide any information about his schooling etc. but had no problems digging into the backgrounds of those who stood in his way. Yeah, he’s clearly a figurehead for the Soroscrats.
Tell me, with his background and radical associations, would a civilian get ANY kind of security clearances?
I just read most of the Cheney speech. It was excellent and of a standard that I have not seen from Obummer.
On another blog someone pointed to the comments from a former FBI agent but the “testimony” was provided by a blog and I am not so certain that this blog is neutral (if you know what I mean). This former FBI agent claimed that they got information without the enhanced techniques. I will need to look at the information again because there seems to be a discrepancy – did the FBI just get the past data? Or did they obtain the data that helped prevent further attacks?
If it was just the former, then the work of the CIA with interrogation was for another purpose, not just tying these hardened criminal terrorists to past actions.
Cheney spoke well in that speech. He did not denigrate Obummer at all. He spoke out against the manner in which memos were released but other information is not being released.
Yes, those Democrat former Presidents and Vice Presidents have been very vocal – hint Al Bore
When former VP Cheney defends the Bush Administration and is critical of Obama´s policies, the left gets bent out of shape. They should remember that people who live in glass houses shouldn´t throw stones.
Jimmy Carter runs around rubber stamping fraudulent elections in Venezuela, gives a soft rebuke to Fidel in Cuba, defends the Palestinians while he condemns Israel,and visits other terrorists. Bill Clinton didn´t let his supposed friendship with Bush 41 interfere with crilticizing Bush 43. Al Gore, between bashing Bush, keeps telling his inconvenient lie about global warming while 33,000 scientists have porclaimed it a myth.
Not nearly as embarrassing as a president that cant recite his own name without a teleprompter. But what is most embarassing is the way Dick Cheney is kicking Obama’s ASS and how it is visibly driving Obama fucking nuts. Indeed, the fact that Cheney is kicking his ass is the entire reason for Obama’s pathetic speech in the first place. And now he looks even worse than he did before he gave it.
so much for “smart power”!
filtered 🙁