Video: Cheney and Hannity on interrogations

posted at 10:54 am on April 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Via Jake Tapper, and interesting equally for what’s being said as well as the fact that it’s being said at all. The former VP got a mostly-undeserved reputation for conducting a media campaign against Obama a couple of months ago when Cheney gave a single interview, but I don’t think there’s much doubt now that Cheney wants to set a few things straight about the record. Cheney remains calm and courteous, but he leaves no doubt with Sean Hannity that he will fight to get the entire story about the interrogations on the table:

Cheney certainly has a better case now, with the NYT’s revelation that Obama covered up Dennis Blair’s assessment that the interrogations worked. If Obama wants to have a national debate on this topic, clearly Dick Cheney will not allow Obama to cut out key data from public knowledge. While George Bush enjoys his retirement, Cheney appears ready to fight for their legacy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

scalleywag on April 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

I try to resist but, after a while the assholeistic comments break me down. It’s kind of like being water boarded 100 times

oldernwiser on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Hate to follow you around Del Monte,but this cut-and-paste lies by liberals is getting old when it has already been debunked so throughly:

Del Dolemonte, Saddam Hussein never was a partner of al-Qaeda and had no involvement with the attacks on 9/11, contrary to what that Bush administration tried to insinuate. Nor the the 9/11 Commission conclude that Saddam Hussein was in any way involved either.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 11:51 AM

You don’t know what you are talking about.
First of all,Bush never stated that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11,insinuation is nothing but a perceived opinion
from someone who is not listening.

The ties between al-aqaeda and Saddam have been established over and over by democrats,not just Bush’s cronies:

There is mountains of evidence that shows that Iraq/Al-qaeda worked together before we invaded.

Ironically,The best evidence is provided by democrats in their majority lead 2008 Senate Intelligence Report:


WaPo: Bush “substantiated by intelligence” -
UPDATED
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/06/09/wapo-bush-substantiated-by-intelligence/

What a long, strange trip it’s been, and here, some years later, we finally get someone in the press to tell it straight: Bush did not lie.

But dive into Rockefeller’s [Intelligence Committee] report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,”

and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

Getalife/starfleet is so wrong about so much they probably need to be reminded that Rockefeller is a democrat,not one of Bush’s cronies.
Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi left the leadership of Osama Bin Laden
to start cell in Iraq after he was hurt in battle in Afghanistan.
Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi leg was operated on in Saddam’s personal hospital,he was set up with a safe house,moved into N. Iraq to work with Al-Ansar,and launched attacks from there where one resulted in the killing of a top official in Jordan.
All before we invaded.
Al-Zarqawi ended up becoming one of the most lethal terrorist in history with tens of thousands of deaths associated with his quest to start a civil war in Iraq.
According to getalife/starfleet and the liberal sheep,somehow this does not count.
Kind of like Obama not knowing what the he!! was going on in a church he supported and attended for 20 yrs.
Liberal pretzel logic.

More evidence that the getalife/starfleet crew can’t comprehend:

Bush Did Not Lie!… Saddam Officials Had “Good Relationship” With Zarqawi

…Update: Sen. Bond Responds
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/bush-did-not-lie-saddam-officials-had.html#comments

The US knew that Al-Qaeda and Al-Zarqawi had a “good relationship” with Saddam Hussein officials before the war:

This document discovered after the invastion shows photos of Al-Qaeda leader Al-Zarqawi. (Dread Pundit Bluto)
ISGZ-2004-019920

2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.

More evidence that Bush did not lie.
This time from one of the leading liberal papers in the country,second only to the NY Times:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story
From the Los Angeles Times

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”

Yet Rockefeller’s highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that “top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11.” Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were “substantiated by intelligence information.” The same goes for claims about Hussein’s possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

And of course the evidence was so strong against Saddam that leading democrats like Rockefeller considered Saddam an
“Imminent threat”,something Bush did not even go so far as to say:

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Why?

You will cheer him on anyway.

You will spend eternity with him and it will not be in heaven.

Again, refusing to do anything beyond spouting off talking points and making incendiary comments to anyone who asks you to elaborate.

I guess it’s easier than using your brain.

I find it hilarious that you’re accusing me of blind devotion to an administration.

Name for me one thing you think Obama’s done wrong in his career. “Not being awesome enough” doesn’t count.

TheMightyMonarch on April 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM

thomasaur on April 22, 2009 at 12:31 PM

bravo!

scalleywag on April 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Which doesn’t explain why after years of effectively keeping the no-fly zone in place that President Bush had to invade Iraq.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Well,according to democrats and Republicans,these were good enough reasons to invade Iraq:

JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ

October 11, 2002


Congress passes a bipartisan resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force, acting alone if necessary, in order to ensure that Iraq disarms any weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Two valid questions, for which I’ve yet to see a solid answer:
1- If waterboarding is torture why do people keep volunterring to have it done.
2- If it can be done over 100 times to someone with no lasting effects how can it be torture?

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

My guess as to why they are subjecting themselves to waterboarding is quite simple(economics)consider you show a good liberal doctor the extremes you have endured to save the souls and conscience of the American people and quicker than diarea your a Victim. Now all you do is present your case for mental duress to your favorite ssi office and shabang your good for 600.00 to 1000.00 per month for life.

heshtesh on April 22, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Romeo13 on April 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Thanks. I’m an aviator and went more recently. We were told the practice is no longer used in training, but I was curious if other forces were still utilizing it.

BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

More proof of Saddam/al-qaeda links BEFORE Bush became President.

I guess President Clinton is a war criminal too.

IRAQ TERROR LINKS

1. U.S. Grand Jury Indictment of Osama bin Laden, dated November 6, 1998:
Paragraph 4. “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

http://tinyurl.com/3f2rq

2. Top secret Iraqi document dated March 28, 1992, lists Osama bin Laden as an asset of the Iraqi intelligence services.

http://tinyurl.com/ks4at

3. In 1992, Ayman al Zawahiri–who later became the Number Two in al Qaeda–visited Baghdad for a meeting with Saddam Hussein.

http://tinyurl.com/7d7hx

4. From 1999 to 2002, Saddam Hussein ran three training camps in Iraq that produced thousands of Islamic terrorists.

http://tinyurl.com/c7njm

5. Saddam’s intelligence service gave Ansar al-Islam money and weapons.

http://tinyurl.com/78hzj

6. Iraqi memo dated November 22, 1999, shows that Saddam Hussein’s chemists trained “Arab fedayeen” how to make IEDs

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013815.php

7. Iraqi memo dated March 11, 2001, shows that Saddam Hussein recruited suicide volunteers to attack U.S. interests.

http://tinyurl.com/gcbso

8. 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta was trained by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad in July of 2001.

http://tinyurl.com/z6v4

9. Members of an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists.

http://tinyurl.com/ywp78r

10. Abu Nidal lived openly in Baghdad.

http://tinyurl.com/26l8m9

11. Saddam maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were trained how to take over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives.

http://tinyurl.com/4ah6z

12. Iraq gave Abdul Rahman Yasin, a 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator, both money and sanctuary.

http://tinyurl.com/4ah6z

13. Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam’s secret police, was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief.

http://tinyurl.com/4ah6z

14. Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group.

http://tinyurl.com/4ah6z

15. In August 1998, an Iraqi member of al Qaeda traveled to Pakistan with an agent of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the American and British embassies with chemical mortars.

http://tinyurl.com/7d7hx

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Uh, Del D., Judge Baer never found any evidence of a 9/11-Iraq link.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Yes he did. Move on.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

That’s “following around” I can live with.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

More proof of Saddam/al-qaeda links BEFORE Bush became President.

I guess President Clinton is a war criminal too.

IRAQ TERROR LINKS

1. U.S. Grand Jury Indictment of Osama bin Laden, dated November 6, 1998:
Paragraph 4. “In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”
——————————————————-
2. Top secret Iraqi document dated March 28, 1992, lists Osama bin Laden as an asset of the Iraqi intelligence services.
——————————————————-
3. In 1992, Ayman al Zawahiri–who later became the Number Two in al Qaeda–visited Baghdad for a meeting with Saddam Hussein.
——————————————————
4. From 1999 to 2002, Saddam Hussein ran three training camps in Iraq that produced thousands of Islamic terrorists.
—————————————————-

5. Saddam’s intelligence service gave Ansar al-Islam money and weapons.
—————————————————–
6. Iraqi memo dated November 22, 1999, shows that Saddam Hussein’s chemists trained “Arab fedayeen” how to make IEDs
——————————————————–
7. Iraqi memo dated March 11, 2001, shows that Saddam Hussein recruited suicide volunteers to attack U.S. interests.
———————————————————-
8. 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta was trained by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal in Baghdad in July of 2001.
——————————————————
9. Members of an Iraqi secret-police organization called Unit 999 were dispatched to camps in Afghanistan to instruct Al Qaeda terrorists.
———————————————————-
10. Abu Nidal lived openly in Baghdad.
———————————————————
11. Saddam maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were trained how to take over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives.
——————————————————-
12. Iraq gave Abdul Rahman Yasin, a 1993 World Trade Center bombing conspirator, both money and sanctuary.
——————————————————-
13. Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam’s secret police, was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief.
——————————————————-
14. Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group.
—————————————————–
15. In August 1998, an Iraqi member of al Qaeda traveled to Pakistan with an agent of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the American and British embassies with chemical mortars.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Which doesn’t explain why after years of effectively keeping the no-fly zone in place that President Bush had to invade Iraq.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Your college history TA’s seem to have forgotten to tell you that the “No Fly Zones” were created by 3 countries-the US, Great Britain, and France.

Of course, the Frogs then wimped out and pulled out of the deal.

BTW, at the time Congress signed off on Bush’s use of force against Iraq, the current Secretary of State, at the time the Junior US Senator from New York, stated that she based her “yes” vote not on what Chimpy’s intel people told her. She based it on what her husband’s intel people told her.

Were they all “lying” about Iraq as well?

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM

Isn’t it amazing that VP Cheney knew about the memos and the purpose of using enhanced interrogation
(not to elicit confessions but to elicit or confirm intelligence) and that he knew the specific outcomes of defeated security threats? And he summarized the rationale and facts without a teleprompter.

Cheney is correct that all of the facts should be on the table since the Obama administration has presented the memos against the counsel of the OCL. If the issue is one of transparency, not scoring political points, then all of the facts including the outcomes should be on the table as Cheney insists. I don’t believe for one moment that his motivation is one of legacy. Cheney has fundamental integrity, which deserves its day in court. The contrast with the Obama administration and its methods of governance could not be clearer.

BTW I, too, was concerned about the wheezing breaths of Cheney in that interview.

onlineanalyst on April 22, 2009 at 1:02 PM

There is more on record of the links established between Saddam,al-aqeda,and other terrorist groups before and after Bush became President:

“Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Husseins’s hospitality.Among them was Abu abbas,mastermind of the Oct.1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,a 69 yr.old man in a wheelchair.
Khala Khadr al-Salahat,accused of designing th bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie,Scotland in Dec.1988(259 killed on board,11 killed on the ground)also lived in Baathist Iraq.

Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16,2002, as Baghdad claimed,Palestinian terrorist abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999.As the APs Sameer n. Yacoub reported on August 21,2002, ;the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq”with the full
knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities.”Nidal’s attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others.”

“US intelligence officals have confirmed that abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing,was being harbored in Iraq.documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home.According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding form Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.”
Opinionjournal,Mar.13,2005

“Iraq continues to be a safehaven,transit point,or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the US,Israel,and other allies.Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism.During the last four decades,it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals.It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel.Regarding the Iraq-Al-Qaeda relationship,reporting from sources of varying credibility points to a number of contacts,incidents of training,and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Osama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990′s.”

Senate report,2003 Iraqi support for terrorism

Richard Clarke told the Washington post on Jan.1999 that he
was “sure” that Iraq was behind the production fo the chemical weapons precursor at the Al-Shifa plant.

“Clarke said US intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it.”
wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb,”but eh said that intelligence exists linking bin laden to Al-Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts,and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”

Clarke and Cohen still stand by their assessment that Saddam/al-qaeda/Sudan worked together on WMD which was the basis for the raining of tomahawks on the “aspirin plant”.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

One thing I never hear addressed by the shrill “Bush lied to us about Iraq” crowd is why we keep finding Al-Qaida operatives there.

“Because we drove those poor people to join!” Oh yes…recruiting people in Iraq is so easy when you’re running from cave to cave and avoiding daisy cutters in Pakistan.

“WE WENT THERE FOR OIL! PUUUH!” Really? Then why are the Iraqis selling it to the Chinese?

Here’s a theory. The Bush administration wanted to change the way we deal with the terrorism problem. So we picked a battlefield we were familiar with, an occupying force we easily defeated once before, and close proximity to nations which churn out terrorists like a paper mill (with the same resulting smell).

We clear away the Hussein regime easily as expected (and get rid of some very odious individuals at the same time), and effectively turned Iraq into a mosquito lamp for terrorists. They keep drifting over the border from Syria and Iran, and our military is more than happy to send them to their 72 virgins.

Just a theory.

Seven years of zero attacks on American soil, and proven instances of interrogation methods preventing specific, planned attacks, and the unhinged leftists still can’t bring themselves to admit that this is a good thing.

TheMightyMonarch on April 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

TheMightyMonarch on April 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Critical thinkng with a dose of common sense is a wonderful thing.

thomasaur on April 22, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Video: Cheney and Hannity on interrogations

If this is the stupid game the new idiot-n-chief wants to play, then just remember, what comes around, goes around. Just remember moron-in-chief, that your establishing the precedent of having ALL past administrations to being prosecuted, including YOURSELF, and YOUR staff.

BTW Barack Hussein Obama, talking about courts and prosecutions? When are YOU going to come clean and prove to America, that you’re a genuine natural born citizen, as per the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold???????

byteshredder on April 22, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I heart Dick Cheney.

He and his wife gave over 75% of their 2005 income to charity, yet he’s become the embodiment of pure evil in the popular imagination.

Call his policies misguided if you will, but how many of his critics have ever given away anywhere near that much income?

(The Obamas managed to give away a whopping 6% last year, so maybe they’re qualified to judge.) /sarc

jazz_piano on April 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Of course we would not even be talking about 9/11 if the inept liberal leadership under Clinton had taken care of Osama
when he was handed to him on a silver platter.

Micheal Sheuer (no friend of Bush’s) lays it on the line:

Harry Smith Taken Aback as CBS Analyst Blames Clinton for bin Laden Failures
By Michael Rule (Bio | Archive)
September 25, 2006 – 10:28 ET
http://newsbusters.org/node/7871

Despite Bill Clinton’s angry protestations, the bulk of the blame for America’s failure to catch or kill Osama bin Laden lies squarely on the Clinton administration, at least according to terrorism analyst Michael Scheuer.

(who headed the Bin Laden unit under Clinton):

“Let’s talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?”

Scheuer refuted Smith’s portrayal of Clinton:

“No, sir, I don’t think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That’s the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden.”

“All right, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?”

Scheuer acknowledged that there is plenty of blame to go around for not getting bin Laden, but asserted that Clinton bears most of it:

“Oh, I think there’s plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try…”

Scheuer continued his response and accused President Clinton of lying to the American people:

“…But it’s just, it’s an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them.”

President Clinton had Bin Laden dead to rights more than 8 times and did nothing.Even had him offered up by the Sudan on a Silver platter and did nothing.

Bush had over 20,000 American troops in Afghanistan hunting him down when he got away in Tora Bora.
The fact he got away (not to be seen in public again or on video) is to insult the thousands of troops that risked their lives in trying to take him down.
Big difference.

This is the type of “police action” that liberals want to go back to that proved to be such a failure in stopping the jihadist.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I love Dick Cheney. He is a modern day Cincinnatus, in just about every sense.

The despicable, lying scumbags in the White House and Congress, today, couldn’t hold a candle to a true patriot and person of intellect as Dick CHeney. The junta occupying Washington is not fit to lick his shoes.

I hope, after this junta is finally thrown out, that they all go to trial and are found guilty of the treason that they are committing in trying to kill everything about the US and destroying the Constitution every step along the way. The Precedent thinks he is going to “break free from the constraints the Founders placed in the Constitution”? Let him defend his anti-Constitutional stand in court, the despicable traitor.

progressoverpeace on April 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 12:43 PM

That’s “following around” I can live with.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 12:59 PM

You were doing great,

I just get tired of liberals trying to rewrite history to fit their cut-and-paste propaganda and ideology so I thought
I would lend a hand.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

From Judge Baer’s written comments in his 2003 ruling:

“The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda’s terrorist acts of September 11.”

“Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue,” Jude Baer wrote, “provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Here’s an example of the bad intel that torture produces, in the case of and al-Qaeda operative who provided bogus evidence under torture:

al-Libi’s testimony was used by the Bush administration to substantiate its allegations that Iraq was prepared to provide al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, [but] in January 2004, al-Libi recanted his confession. He said that he had invented the information because he was afraid of being further abused by his interrogators.[...]

The administration’s best case for the value of enhanced interrogation techniques, then, turned out to have been fundamentally flawed. If the consequences of torture are as catastrophic as embarking upon the Iraq War on the basis of fabricated information, it emasculates the claims by torture’s defenders that the practice saves lives.

I doubt the above will ever pass Cheney’s lips.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM

On the subject of Cheney and intelligence:

U.S. counterterrorism officials are reacting angrily to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that waterboarding 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times was a “success” that produced actionable intelligence.

“Cheney is full of crap,” one intelligence source with decades of experience said Tuesday.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM

“Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue,” Jude Baer wrote, “provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”

When you read a string of qualifiers like “draw inferences” and “could lead”, you know you’re reading nothing more than supposition.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM

And guess who was the leader in opposing the handing off of Bin Laden to the US on a silver platter from the Sudan:

As a Senior Foreign Policy Adviser/UN Ambassador to Obama, Susan Rice,

Richard Miniter, author of the bestseller Losing Bin Laden, it was she who was a major opponent of accepting Sudan’s offer to turn over the world’s most wanted mass murderer. At the time, Rice was the Clinton Administration’s Secretary of State for African Affairs and a former assistant National Security Advisor under Sandy Berger.

According the both Ijaz and Miniter, Rice’s personal beliefs on the Sudan’s credibility led to her convincing Berger to reject their offer to turn over Bin Laden, overruling the advice of Tim Carney, then ambassador to Sudan. Her partner in this colossal error in judgment? Bush hater Richard Clarke. Sadly, a little more than a year later, Bin Laden’s murderers blew up the African embassies, killing U. S. soldiers and citizens.

Part of that “smart power” we keep hearing about but not seeing any results from.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Can anyone tell me what Cheney’s position was on the surge? Was he as reluctant as was Bush to implement the strategy?

And I have always thought more highly of Cheney than Bush. Unfortunately as VP you often get tagged with labels that aren’t legitimate because of the action of your boss.

technopeasant on April 22, 2009 at 2:11 PM

puckey

lees on April 22, 2009 at 2:20 PM

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Well then Obama should have no problem in adhering to his campaign promise of full transparency and releasing “all” the memo’s.

These officials have a different take:

The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) — including the use of waterboarding — caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Intel director: High-value info obtained

Apr 21 10:13 PM US/Eastern
By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent

The Obama administration’s top intelligence official privately told employees last week that “high value information” was obtained in interrogations that included harsh techniques approved by former President George W. Bush.

“A deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network” resulted, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said in the memo,


NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says
Private memo says interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight

By Peter Baker
The New York Times
updated 10:21 p.m. ET, Tues., April 21, 2009
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/


Techniques ‘made us safer’

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Mr. Bush, said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.” Former Vice President Dick Cheney, in a separate interview with Fox, endorsed that conclusion and said he has asked the C.I.A. to declassify memos detailing the gains from the harsh interrogations.


The CIA’s Questioning Worked

By Marc A. Thiessen
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818_pf.html

Yet there is more information confirming the program’s effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states “we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM” and notes that “intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda.”

The memos refer to other classified documents — including an “Effectiveness Memo” and an “IG Report,” which explain how “the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information.” Why didn’t Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that “the CIA believes ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.’ . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques.” The memo continues: “Before the CIA used enhanced techniques

. . .

KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will find out.’ ” Once the techniques were applied, “interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

These procedures stopped major terrorist attacks and saved thousands of lives.
Trying to rewrite history is not going to change these facts and saying they were a failure because they didn’t work everytime is ignorant and dangerous.

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM

You have got to be kidding.
Hillary talking about “credibility”
I would be surprised if little Mrs. “overcharge” can even spell it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seized on an opportunity Wednesday to take a shot at Dick Cheney in front of a House committee, telling lawmakers that she did not view the former vice president as a “particularly reliable source” on issues of torture.

This coming from the woman who dodges phantom sniper fire while being filmed and basically called General Petreaus a liar:

Hillary “Willing suspension of disbelief”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjcTb2ORVd0

But who are we to question the woman who proclaims America as the oldest democracy during her “Smart Power” tour.

Didn’t she help Bush lie America into the Iraq war according to liberals:

Every nation has to either be with us, or against us.
Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price
.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During an interview on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather
September 13, 2001

Dam#!!! that Cowboy diplomacy!!!!

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members…

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

Now she is the liberal darling and shining light on credibility after saying the same things about Saddam that Bush is accused of telling lies about.

How progressive!!!!!!

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 3:01 PM

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:55 PM

We may have no recourse but toiletbowling if you can’t provide links to your dubious sources.

DarkCurrent on April 22, 2009 at 3:10 PM

What a treasure it is for the Democratic Party to still have Mr. 17 percent approval rating still appearing on the GOP Network. Having Cheney and the divorce master Newt on every Sunday as the face of the GOP is and always will be most welcome.

Monkei on April 22, 2009 at 3:19 PM

I hope, after this junta is finally thrown out, that they all go to trial and are found guilty of the treason that they are committing in trying to kill everything about the US and destroying the Constitution every step along the way. The Precedent thinks he is going to “break free from the constraints the Founders placed in the Constitution”? Let him defend his anti-Constitutional stand in court, the despicable traitor.

progressoverpeace on April 22, 2009 at 1:27 PM

This must be a joke. Or at the very least the public school system in the south at it’s best.

Monkei on April 22, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Obamanation=Bah-nah-nah Ree-pub-lik

Speakup on April 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Well, that was just awesome. Hit em’ with facts and they are gone. What a fantastic display of truth! That was a beautiful thing to observe! Thanks.

BetseyRoss on April 22, 2009 at 3:24 PM

He and his wife gave over 75% of their 2005 income to charity, yet he’s become the embodiment of pure evil in the popular imagination.

Call his policies misguided if you will, but how many of his critics have ever given away anywhere near that much income?

(The Obamas managed to give away a whopping 6% last year, so maybe they’re qualified to judge.) /sarc

jazz_piano on April 22, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Giving away money to charity doesn’t make you smarter, just poorer in the eyes of the IRS. Give away Mr 17% … you could never give back anywhere near what you have taken … patriot … seldom does anyone with 7 deferments get called that. You “heart” Dick … if only we could find the other 9 people who “heart” Dick with you.

Monkei on April 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM

HAR! I can’t believe he makes reference to the war on Nicaragua, one of the most disgraceful NeoCon debacles of the 80′s.

In light of the Iraq clusterf*ck, the very idea that Cheney has any credibility whatsoever on the subject of intelligence is laughable.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM

Hey, gang, getalife’s uncle showed up.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Here’s an example of the bad intel that torture produces, in the case of and al-Qaeda operative who provided bogus evidence under torture:

al-Libi’s testimony was used by the Bush administration to substantiate its allegations that Iraq was prepared to provide al-Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction, [but] in January 2004, al-Libi recanted his confession. He said that he had invented the information because he was afraid of being further abused by his interrogators.[...]

The administration’s best case for the value of enhanced interrogation techniques, then, turned out to have been fundamentally flawed. If the consequences of torture are as catastrophic as embarking upon the Iraq War on the basis of fabricated information, it emasculates the claims by torture’s defenders that the practice saves lives.
I doubt the above will ever pass Cheney’s lips.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:53 PM

LOL! “Rand Beers”, he says. Best known as the “advisor” for Jeanne-Claude Kerri. I won’t even get into his vile critcism of a real war hero, John McCain.

Get Begala to give you some better talking points, kid. So far today you’re batting .000

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM

When you read a string of qualifiers like “draw inferences” and “could lead”, you know you’re reading nothing more than supposition.

starfleet_dude on April 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Well put from a Law School graduate of Moe Howard University.

Give it up, kid. A Federal Judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Nothing you can say or do, especially insulting his intelligence, can ever change that. Saul Alinsky tactics don’t work here.

As I have said countless times in the past, the only reason you Leftists are so desperate to deny that Iraq worked with al Qaeda is because it would make Bush and Cheney look good.

In your parallel universe, al Qaeda has been active in every country on planet Earth, Except one?

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Give it up, kid. A Federal Judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Say WHAT? Care to source that? In what case? Are federal judges in the business of deciding whether BushCo. lied to us? Even Cheney denied saying AQ met with Iraqi officials in Brussels… and then the Daily Show played tape of him saying just that. Oops.

As I have said countless times in the past, the only reason you Leftists are so desperate to deny that Iraq worked with al Qaeda is because it would make Bush and Cheney look good.

Not up to us to prove anything… the overwhelming evidence supports that Bush and Cheney fudged the intelligence in order to fulfill the PNAC’s crackpot scheme to create an American bastion in the mideast, which is why they let Afghanistan go to shit. Conservatives are desperate to draw the most tenuous connections between Iraq and 9/11 because the absolute worst thing for your people would be to admit you were horribly, disastrously wrong.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Conservatives are desperate to draw the most tenuous connections between Iraq and 9/11 because the absolute worst thing for your people would be to admit you were horribly, disastrously wrong.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Conservatives are desperate? Sounds to me like you and ‘dude and getajob are desperate beyond all measure to try to make a point that isn’t sticking on this thread.

Do you have a dog in this fight, sir? This thread is about someone in this country growing a spine and willing to sacrifice their reputation and good name to protect the people of the United States of America.

What would you do to protect this country? Let’s put it another way, what would you do to protect our family? Would you politicize the issue and go by your “feelings” or would you not blink? I think you would blink.

If you want an indictment of the people who protect you, than the USA is not for you.

Trolls spend way too much time analyzing and parsing words to make any significant impact on the situation. It is simply white noise.

CattyConservative on April 22, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Give it up, kid. A Federal Judge made a legal ruling that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Say WHAT? Care to source that? In what case? Are federal judges in the business of deciding whether BushCo. lied to us? Even Cheney denied saying AQ met with Iraqi officials in Brussels… and then the Daily Show played tape of him saying just that. Oops.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Wow, getawife’s uncle is here. “BushCo”? LOL. “Daily Show”? Bwahahahaha.

Sorry, kid, I already referenced this earlier today, before Begala sent you in to relieve getalife.

The ruling was in May 2003, in the case brought by family members of 9/11 victims in the US Southern District of New York (that’s “Manhattan” to you Leftists).

Judge Harold Baer ruled that based on the evidence presented at the trial, he believed that said evidence would convince a jury that Iraq had a role in the attacks.

He wrote:

“The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs’ burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda’s terrorist acts of September 11.”

“Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue,” Jude Baer wrote, “provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda’s criminal acts.”

I’m not surprised that you had never heard of this case ruling-it’s been suppressed for years by those afraid of the truth.

BTW Judge Baer is a Clinton appointee. As for you, you’re nothing more than a turd blossom. And your “overwhelming evidence” would be laughed out of Judge Baer’s court.

You’re dismissed now. Please tell Begala to give you some better talking points.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009
Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009

You to have been doing yeomen’s work. Thanks. Very impressive.

Loxodonta on April 22, 2009 at 7:17 PM

BTW, slightly OT, but Monday night before the NHL playoff game between my Boston Bruins and the Montreal Canadiens at the Centre Bell in Montreal, the 21,273 Canadian fans present booed loudly when “The Star Spangled Banner” was sung.

Tonight’s game just started about 20 minutes ago, and before the game the fans were asked to please respect the US National Anthem. It was greeted with a handful of people clapping.

But I thought the world loved us now that O’bama was President?

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 7:31 PM

BTW I don’t know if Baxter Greene has used this as a cite, but a blogger from Massachusetts, “mveritas”, spent countless hours of his free time translating captured Iraqi documents after we liberated Iraq in 2003. Those translations proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism outside his country.

http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/

At the time, our gracious host on this thread, Ed Morrissey, hired and paid a couple of translators (out of his own pocket, as I recall) to check the veracity of mveritas’ translations. Both of them confirmed his translations to be spot-on.

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM

“The judge noted that the experts provided few actual facts that Iraq provided support to the terrorists.” Guess you missed that bit of the ruling, Ace. I guess if you ignore all other evidence (ignorance seems to be your MO)– for example Richard Clarke advising Bush that there was no AQ/Iraq connection and being told “wrong answer”.

But hey, if a judge needs to rule something to get some of Saddam’s money to 9/11 victims, I’m all for it. He can decide puppies cause cancer for all I care.

Dismiss yourself.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Cheney certainly has a better case now, with the NYT’s revelation

I’m confused. Cheney always had a good “case”. He has the truth, fgs. He has EARNED our trust. Not blind trust but years and years of honorable service with no track record of telling untruths.

The correct attitude is not “Wow, the NYT report means Cheney might be right”. The correct attitude is “Cheney must know what he’s talking about” and we support him whether the NYT had come throught or not. Since they did, we can say it shows what we knew all along, that he knows what he’s talking about.

KittyLowrey on April 22, 2009 at 8:17 PM

I’m confused. Cheney always had a good “case”. He has the truth, fgs. He has EARNED our trust. Not blind trust but years and years of honorable service with no track record of telling untruths.

Because the person you can trust regarding the effectiveness of torture is the one who’s administration claimed they don’t torture.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Cheney is a good man. We blindly let the left destroy him with lies & propaganda.

I’m all for a grassroots movement to protest the sponsors of CNN & MSNBC.

redridinghood on April 22, 2009 at 8:46 PM

One only hope the troll class and master Obama are in whatever place is hit next thanks to their own gutting of our national security through this feckless adherence to their hatred of those trying to protect them with every bit of strength and cunning they possess.

Only the reality of extraordinary suffering wakes some folks from the moraline daze they find so soothing and so smarmily superior.

profitsbeard on April 22, 2009 at 9:42 PM

Conservatives are desperate to draw the most tenuous connections between Iraq and 9/11 because the absolute worst thing for your people would be to admit you were horribly, disastrously wrong.

First off….”your people”? Interesting choice of words.

Secondly, I think most conservatives would agree that even if it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that we justified going to Iraq using faulty intelligence, that at the very least we rid the world of a slimy dictator and his two sociopath spawn, and gave the Iraqis self-determination for the first time in decades.

And while we’re talking about the inability to admit one was wrong, when are the leftists going to get around to admitting that the New Deal did not in fact end the Depression, was a colossal failure, prolonged and exacerbated the problem, and spawned the most badly designed, expensive, and abused government program in history?

That’s Social Security if you weren’t paying attention.

TheMightyMonarch on April 22, 2009 at 9:50 PM

I love Dick Cheney. He is a modern day Cincinnatus, in just about every sense.

The despicable, lying scumbags in the White House and Congress, today, couldn’t hold a candle to a true patriot and person of intellect as Dick CHeney. The junta occupying Washington is not fit to lick his shoes.

I hope, after this junta is finally thrown out, that they all go to trial and are found guilty of the treason that they are committing in trying to kill everything about the US and destroying the Constitution every step along the way. The Precedent thinks he is going to “break free from the constraints the Founders placed in the Constitution”? Let him defend his anti-Constitutional stand in court, the despicable traitor.

progressoverpeace

Let me second that, thanks.

mz.josephine on April 22, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Every appropriate member of the Bush administration should lawyer up and exercise their 5th amendment rights. They should tell this Marxist regime and its congressional enablers nothing. Take your subpoena and wait for discovery. The left wants blood so let them try to take but don’t give it willingly.

rplat on April 22, 2009 at 10:40 PM

I dunno. Hillary says this guy doesnt know anything. LMFAO!
VP for 8 years… uh… I think he knows what he’s talking about as cmpared to Kackling Hillary.

Where is she anyway? How come she hasnt been on any interviews or press conferences? must be nice to wonder the globe and go what you want in secret huh?

johnnyU on April 22, 2009 at 11:04 PM

“Cheney remains calm and courteous, …….”

…….. and not a teleprompter in sight.

Elections do have consequences, don’t they?

Seven Percent Solution on April 22, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Thanks again for the entertainment. One of your fellow robots posted the exact same “reasoning” to my same cite on another thread.

I’m impressed. Begala and Carville are getting cheap.

But then, they also held a sitting President who committed felony perjury in front of a Federal Grand Jury to be above the law, even though his own Justice Department had previously successfully prosecuted a Federal employee for the same crime.

Get your niece getalife back here. At least she has more than one (insert here)

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2009 at 12:25 AM

Not up to us to prove anything… the overwhelming evidence supports that Bush and Cheney fudged the intelligence in order to fulfill the PNAC’s crackpot scheme to create an American bastion in the mideast, which is why they let Afghanistan go to shit

Hey look, it’s Cindy Sheehan! Run over her with a mac truck!

NathanG on April 23, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 7:52 PM

You are using Richard Clarke as a source of truth that Saddam
and al-qaeda did not have a relationship.

You must be joking with this.

The same man who got caught lying his a$$ off in front of the 9/11 commission when he said Bush did not take al-qaeda seriously and have a plan.

CLARK IS ON TAPE SAYING THAT BUSH DID TAKE AL-QAEDA SERIOUSLY AND WAS LOOKING TO IMPROVE ON THE FAILURES OF THE CLINTION ADMINISTRATION.

You need to raise the bar because using a proven lier to back up your de-bunked “Bush lied” drivel shows serious desperation.

Clarke caught in one of his many lies:


Richard Clarke, liar

Share Post Print
March 25, 2004 Posted by Scott at 6:34 AM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/03/006210.php

The transcript of Richard Clarke’s background briefing of Fox News White House reporter Jim Angle and other correspondents in August 2002 rebuts point by point the lurid charges now made by Richard Clarke in his public testimony, his book, and his 60 Minutes appearance flogging his book before a prostrate Lesley Stahl.


Here’s Richard Clarke telling the world about Saddam’s al-qaeda connections:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

Five months later, the same Richard Clarke who would one day claim that there was “absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever,” told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was “sure” that Iraq was behind the production of the chemical weapons precursor at the al Shifa plant. “Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at al Shifa or what happened to it,” wrote Post reporter Vernon Loeb, in an article published January 23, 1999. “But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to al Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.”

The United States retaliated on August 20, 1998, striking al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum. “Let me be very clear about this,” said President Bill Clinton, addressing the nation after the strikes. “There is no question in my mind that the Sudanese factory was producing chemicals that are used–and can be used–in VX gas. This was a plant that was producing chemical warfare-related weapons, and we have physical evidence of that.”

A small group of Clinton administration officials, led by CIA director George Tenet and national security adviser Sandy Berger, reviewed a number of al Qaeda-linked targets in Sudan. Although bin Laden had left the African nation two years earlier, U.S. officials believed that he was still deeply involved in the Sudanese government-run Military Industrial Corporation (MIC).


NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

Iraq’s contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets.


Here is another de-bunking,credibility smack down of your
hero that failed so miserably at counter-terrorism:


Clarke’s Progress
Guess who used to believe in the Iraq/al-Qaida connection?

By Christopher Hitchens
Updated Monday, March 29, 2004, at 6:20 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2097901/

Ah, we meant to say no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that case, how do you explain the conviction, shared by Clarke and Benjamin and Simon, that Iraq was behind Bin Laden’s deadly operation in Sudan? The Age of Sacred Terror justifies the Clinton strike on Khartoum on the grounds that “Iraqi weapons-scientists” were linked to Bin Laden’s factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was “sure” that “intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa’s current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.” The U.N. arms inspector upon whom all three relied at the time, for corroborating evidence implicating Saddam, was a man who has since become famous: David Kay

Using Richard Clarke as a reliable source.
Who next,
Joe Wilson.

Now back up all of your hero Obama’s talk of Transparency and Accountability by releasing “all” of the interrogation memos.

Baxter Greene on April 23, 2009 at 4:09 AM

Get your niece getalife back here. At least she has more than one (insert here)

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2009 at 12:25 AM

At least getalife knows she doesn’t have a clue where Constatine makes a complete fool out of herself acting like she does.

Baxter Greene on April 23, 2009 at 4:17 AM

Too bad he couldn’t have done this “fighting for their legacy” while he was actually Vice President and not looking like a sore loser.

Speedwagon82 on April 23, 2009 at 4:29 AM

BTW I don’t know if Baxter Greene has used this as a cite, but a blogger from Massachusetts, “mveritas”, spent countless hours of his free time translating captured Iraqi documents after we liberated Iraq in 2003. Those translations proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein supported terrorism outside his country.
Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Bought the book.
Lots of info.

I think this relates:

Saddam’s Dangerous Friends
What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us.

by Stephen F. Hayes
03/24/2008, Volume 013, Issue 27
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda’s second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.” According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq’s former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled “Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents.” The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those “documents” include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein’s regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

I like a statement I saw blogged earlier that went something like this:

Liberals believe al-qaeda was operating in every muslim country but one: Iraq.

Typical liberal pretzel logic.

Baxter Greene on April 23, 2009 at 4:31 AM

Monkei on April 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM

What the hell are you babbling about? Bill Clinton actually dodged the draft and you are whining about Cheney and the millions of others who got legal deferments?

Speedwagon82 on April 23, 2009 at 4:33 AM

Lord forgive me, but I wish the Bush Admin didn’t waterboard those poor islamo-terrorists. Ther’d be a lot less loonie liberals in Los Angeles right now

Bevan on April 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM

BTW, a Public Service Announcement…the only reason I brought up the Clinton Judge ruling that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks was to watch and laugh at the totally predictable reaction from the howler monkeys on the Left.

I am full aware that Judge Baer’s ruling was mostly symbolic, as the chances of the palintiffs collecting the amounts of money he awarded him were remote at best.

However, the ruling is nonetheless significant, as it proves that even a Democrat, when presented evidence, can conclude something that many of his fellow travelers claim can’t possibly be true. This was later evidenced by several senior Democrats saying they had no problem with waterboarding.

As I expected (I’ve done this before) some on the Left had never heard of this legal case and ruling, which proves how well it had been kept a secret from them by a media who always hated Bush. They showed their ignorance of this case by asking me for cites to prove it actually happened. That’s not surprising, as many Leftists don’t even know that Clinton’s 1998 indictment of bin Laden mentioned his connection with Iraq.

This was followed by the Leftists immediately criticizing the Judge’s reasoning in making his decision, despite the fact that they themselves never saw all of the evidence he was presented with. Of course, this is a standard Saul Alinsky tactic; when one can’t credibly refute one’s opponent, the best thing to do is insult them and call them names.

What I find especially curious in this whole thing is that folks on the Left had no problem when other countries were tied to the 9/11 attacks. Afghanistan was a no-brainer (fitting for those with no brains), and many on the Left even claimed Saudi Arabia was somehow involved in the attacks, simply because most of the perps were Saudis.

Any true American would want to punish any and all countries that helped with the 9/11 attacks, no matter what those countries were. But for the past 8 years, one country has always gotten a pass from the Left-Iraq. Why is that?

Much of this is due to their being brainwashed by their 1960s-leftover teaching assistants, who are still bitterly clinging to their 9/10 ideal that a “secular” Saddam Hussein would never ever work with a “religious” bin Laden. But they conveniently ignore their own Democrat President making such a connection 3 years before 9/11, simply because recorded history in their parallel universe didn’t begin until Chimpy took over in January 2001.

I would ask these intellectually-challenged “adults” if they would accept iron-clad evidence of Iraq being involved in the 9/11 attacks. My guess is that they would not, because it would mean the people they hate with the intensity of a million suns were (gulp) right. Never mind that the pre-Bush Democrat Administration claimed the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. As I said, recorded history for them hadn’t started yet.

Del Dolemonte on April 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Because the person you can trust regarding the effectiveness of torture is the one who’s administration claimed they don’t torture.

Constantine on April 22, 2009 at 8:44 PM

The person and administration I trust (not the current one) did not lie about what they did, how they did it or why they did it, no matter how you want to label it or lie about their motivations.

I’ll guess had they not protected this country you’d grab a baton and lead the impeachment parade. Are you one of those “Bush was warned in August 2001 and did nothing” creatures?

KittyLowrey on April 23, 2009 at 7:42 PM

Baxter Greene on April 22, 2009
Del Dolemonte on April 22, 2009

Thanks guys. You gave them the most difficult arguments; factual information.

Not worthy.

itsspideyman on April 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3