Home › Blogs › JHT's blog ›

Cheney No Longer Claims That Torture Saved Lives

Submitted by JHT on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 23:16
in

Dick Cheney had earlier claimed that some classified CIA documents supported his contention that torture provided information which prevented a terrorist attack, contradicting a report from the CIA’s inspector general. A few days ago Senator Carl Levin reviewed the documents and stated that Cheney’s claims about the classified documents were untrue. Greg Sargent has reviewed an interview Cheney gave with Fox last night, finding that Cheney has backed away from his claims:

There’s a very revealing moment buried in an interview that Dick Cheney gave to Fox News last night that really gives away his game plan on torture.

Specifically: Cheney seemed to edge away from the claim that the documents he’s asking the CIA to declassify will prove unequivocally that torture worked.

The key moment came when his interviewer said: “You want some documents declassified having to do with waterboarding.” Cheney replied:

“Yes, but the way I would describe them is they have to do with the detainee program, the interrogation program. It’s not just waterboarding. It’s the interrogation program that we used for high-value detainees. There were two reports done that summarize what we learned from that program, and I think they provide a balanced view.”

Bear with me here, because this is crucial. Cheney is carefully saying that the documents summarize what we learned from the overall interrogation program. Torture, of course, was only a component of that program. So he’s clearly saying that the docs summarize what was learned from a program that included non-torture techniques, too.

Here’s why this is important. It dovetails precisely with what Senator Carl Levin, who has also seen these docs, says about them. Levin claims the docs don’t do anything to “connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques.”

My bet is Cheney is planning to cite the valuable intel in the docs and say that the program — of which torture was only a part — was responsible for producing it. He’ll fudge the question of whether the torture itself was actually responsible for generating that information. Cheney is as experienced as any Washington hand at using precise language to obfsucate, and this is the game plan. You heard it here first.

 

2
Your rating: None Average: 2 (4 votes)

Comments

Obama is the president now

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 23:35.

So why the obsession with Cheney? Is it because he handed Obama his ass a couple of weeks ago in the "dueling speeches"? Cheney is out of office. Obama has announced that it's back to the Army Field Manual for interrogations. The world knows that there has been a major shift in policy.

Either war crimes were committed, or they were not. Eric Holder has free reign to charge Cheney or anyone else he wants to pursue.

Congress has free reign to investigate. Pelosi seems to have lost her appetitie for a truth commission. Perhaps too much truth could come out?

Why continue to push this issue in this format? It seems your beef is with Obama. He has the power to do something about it. 

 

Obama is the President Now

Submitted by amorphous on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 00:28.

Why the obsession with Cheney?  Because Cheney is doing a lot of interviews saying that torture worked and that closing Guantanamo is a mistake.  And a lot of people feel he is slinging a lot of BS (see here) about what happened and what should be done.  And now Cheney is seemingly backing away from the claim that torture works, which affects whether or not he "handed Obama his ass". if Ali Soufan is correct and non-coercive interrogation techniques worked, then Bush/Cheney are guilty of damaging the US's image and reputation around the world for nothing. 

if Ali Soufan is correct and

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 00:33.

if Ali Soufan is correct and non-coercive interrogation techniques worked, then Bush/Cheney are guilty of damaging the US's image and reputation around the world for nothing. 

And? Can you give us the next sentence here? Is this a part of due process?

This is the court of public opinion

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:25.

You don't need a court of law to evaluate the facts that have already come to light and to make an informed decision. You use an investigation and conviction by a court of law as a cowardly refuge to keep form honestly admitting the truth. The truth a so-called intellectually honest person as yourself would come to.

In another thread, you used a grade school argument to claim Patraeus wasn't talking about torture when he menitioned the Geneva Conventions because he didn't specifically say the word torture. When shown a quote where he did, you accused me and NRN as being bush haters to deflect the proof. You've proven over and over that you will always find some way to deflect when given clear evidence.

By your rationale, I guess you don't believe OJ killed Nicole because a court of law didn't convict him.

Double Standard Skayne?

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 15:49.

You don't need a court of law to evaluate the facts that have already come to light and to make an informed decision. You use an investigation and conviction by a court of law as a cowardly refuge to keep form honestly admitting the truth.

So here is my final attempt with you and NRN on this matter. You do not have all of the facts. I do not have all of the facts. We can each point to statements by major players in this scenario that said this or said that. And then argue about whether they meant this or inferred that. With only four redacted memos and other bits and pieces to go on, there is no way to prove something conclusively one way or another. I say it was enhanced interrogation, you say it was torture. I say its a legal matter, you say its a public opinion matter. Obama could put an end to the speculation if he wanted to.

No we get to the double standard. Using your quote above, how do you square what the far left is trying to do to O'Reilly? He was obviously trying Dr. Tiller in the "court of public opinion". The guy gets murdered, and O'Reilly is vilified. Keith O has basically called for his arrest.

With that in mind, what about the demands of the far left to release the enhanced interrogation phots? We all know that releasing the enhanced interrogation photos would undoubtedly cause American deaths, either on the battlefield or in the civilian population. But the left felt that that is simply a price that had to be paid. So I ask you, what is the difference between O'Reilly trying Dr. Tiller in the court of public opinion, and you and the far left wanting to relase enhanced interrogation photos to sway the court of public opinion? The left seemed perfectly willing to concede that a few Americans would die. At least Obama realized that releasing them would cause needless death and violence, and is trying to put a stop to it.

Finally, I do believe that OJ killed Nicole. I believe this because I was able to watch the testimony, hear the witnesses answer questions, and see all of the facts that were available. I was able to read the analysis from legal scholars and come to my own conclusion. In the enhanced interrogation case we have four redacted memos and bit and pieces from people who know a part of the the situation, but not all of it. And I put the whole thing into the context of immediate post 9/11. We were under attack and had no reason to believe other massive attacks weren't coming. Apparently some BIG ones were averted.

So you can Monday morining quarterback if you want, just don't expect me to jump on your bandwagon.

Skayne, is that a touch of projection by you there?

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:47.

when you offered: "When shown a quote where he did, you accused me and NRN as being bush haters to deflect the proof. You've proven over and over that you will always find some way to deflect when given clear evidence. By your rationale, I guess you don't believe OJ killed Nicole because a court of law didn't convict him."

I didn't get that what you allege here is what Lonestar is doing here or elsewhere.

But what I do get is that projecting that trait onto someone like Lonestar underscores exactly how you and NextRightNannie and Jai Ho Tied and others on the farLeft operate in this blog.  Over and over deflecting the truth until, finally and ultimately, your better opponent tires and withdraws from the discussion.

Sort of like that often used farLeft tactic of telling a lie over and over until people begin to think it ought to replace the truth?

 

The truth doesn't matter to conservatives

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 11:45.

It's conservatives who deal in self-delusion. You did it for 8 years, you did it during the election, you do it now, you'll do it after the midterms.

I don't need to project anything. Conservatives are the rump minority accelerating to fringe status.

tiffany jewelry

Submitted by louis vuitton on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 02:20.

 Reagan was president when I turned 18, and I hated the bastard.  Still do.  Vehemently.  Republicans invoke the name of Reagan in order to discredit themselves and make them appear as if they have ulterior motives.  They would be better off to invoke the names of Goldwater or Eisenhower instead of some morally degenerate screwball radical.

No, I think my own politics were more influenced by the culture I grew up in, the desert southwest. discount tiffany jewelry