Libertarian Leanings

Interrogation Deniers

Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Hayden lumps interrogation deniers in with the birthers and truthers.

Let me add that this is not a discussion about the merits or the appropriateness of any interrogation technique. Indeed, I personally took more than half of the techniques (including waterboarding) off the table in 2007 because American law had changed, our understanding of the threat had deepened, and we were now blessed with additional sources of information. We can debate what was appropriate then, or now, but this is a discussion about a particular historical fact: Information derived from enhanced interrogation techniques helped lead us to bin Laden.

And so those who are prone to condemn the actions of those who have gone before (while harvesting the fruits of their efforts) might take pause.

Torture Controversy Resuscitated

The torture controversy has made a brief comeback with the death of Osama bin Laden.  It turns out our earliest leads on the courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden's door came from individuals who had been subjected to waterboarding.  

Lefties are in denial over it.  They've been painting themselves into a corner by their insistence that waterboarding is torture, but how do you call something torture when it is part of the survival training given to our own military personnel?  As far as I know, congress hasn't outlawed the use of it as part of S.E.R.E. training.  S.E.R.E. stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.  Here is a first hand description of the technique.

Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.

But the left, intent on casting the Bush administration as war criminals, lowered the bar on torture so that it now includes survival training techniques.  Unfortunately for the left, waterboarding as a political weapon took a hit when CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed that waterboarding was how they got the first bits of information that ultimately led to Bin Laden.  (My emphasis below.)

“WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?

PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.”

When pressed by Brian Williams, Panetta intentionally left the political question open by speculating that they might have gotten “the same information through other approaches.”  But by doing that he also confirmed precisely where we did not get the information.  That was from every other approach except waterboarding.

This isn't the first time we've heard that the enhanced interrogation techniques proved to be extremely effective for getting information out of uncooperative detainees.

How a Detainee Became An Asset
Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding

By Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 29, 2009

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

But, in spite of such convincing evidence to the contrary, the left continues to insist not only is waterboarding cruel, inhumane, and illegal, it's an ineffective interrogation technique. John Quiggin of Crooked Timber was one who was quick to disparage any notion that waterboarding could in any possible way have led us to Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.

In my post on bin Laden’s death, I noted the spin in a New York Times story suggesting that torture had helped to extract the clues leading to bin Laden’s location, even though the facts reported suggested the opposite. This analysis, also in the NYT, confirms both the spinning and the fact that the evidence produced under brutal torture was deliberately misleading. Given the failure of the Bush Administration to get anywhere near bin Laden, it seems likely that they were in fact misled, deluded by the ancient belief that evidence extracted under torture is the most reliable kind.

What a pathetically weak argument, to suggest that "it seems likely" that interrogators were misled.  Likely?  Misled about what?  And it's even less convincing to argue that we would have gotten the same information from other sources.  I wouldn't want to bet my life on that.

And though congress voted to ban waterboarding in 2008, (George Bush vetoed that legislation.) members were not always opposed.  At the time waterboarding was first going to be used, members of congress were briefed on it.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort.

Unsurprisingly, when the briefings were made public, certain Democrats who were briefed denied that they understood what they had been told.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

“We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing,” Mr. Goss said in an interview. “Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough.”

Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, who was committee chairman in 2002, said in an interview that he did not recall ever being briefed on the methods, though government officials with access to records say all four committee leaders received multiple briefings.

How embarrassing to have their focus on politics over national security right out there where everybody could see it. 

It's not as if such posturing were really necessary.  In general Americans have been pretty evenly divided on the use torture to extract information from terror suspects.

On nine occasions since July 2004, the Pew Research Center has asked Americans about the "use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information." The results have been remarkably stable. In April, 49% of respondents said it was "often" or "sometimes" justified, and 47% said "rarely" or "never." Sixty-four percent of Republicans, 54% of independents and 36% of Democrats felt torture could be justified often or sometimes.

Other survey organizations also report an evenly divided public. In answer to an April ABC News/Washington Post ( WPO - news - people ) question, 49% of those polled said they supported Barack Obama's decision that his administration would not use torture, but 48% said there were cases in which the U.S. should consider using it against terrorism suspects.

In an April 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 50% of respondents said they approved of the Bush administration's decision to use "harsh interrogation procedures, including the procedures known as waterboarding," but almost as many, 46%, were opposed.

That may explain why lefty moral indignation doesn't get a lot of traction with the American people.  And it's getting less as we go along.

Candidate Barack Obama railed against Bush administration treatment of terrorist detainees, their incarceration at Guantanamo, and the military tribunals that would determine their guilt or innocense of terrorist crimes.  But when candidate Obama became President Obama, things changed. 

When it became his responsibility to weigh the moral issues against American lives, President Obama kept Guantanamo open.  He suspended plans to try the terrorists in civilian courts in lower Manhattan.  Military tribunals at Guantanamo are the order of the day.  Lefty pundits expressed outrage over those decisions.

Who knows if their outrage is real.  Even though they will not be held accountable if a bomb should go off in a crowded subway, it must occur to them that valuing the rights and well being of terrorists over the lives of fellow Americans, doesn't cast them in a particularly good light.  They have little choice but to double down on denial. 

Even in the hypothetical situation of a captured terrorist with information vital to preventing an imminent attack, there is only one answer for progressives.  Waterboarding doesn't work.  In spite of all of facts to the contrary, they must insist, waterboarding doesn't work.  There is no other choice.  The alternative is to admit that American lives are not nearly so important to progressives as their own moral vanity.

That's not something they have to admit it, though.  We already know it.

His Astonishing Wonderfulness

Dick Cavett took to the New York Times the other day with an editorial column extolling his astonishing wonderfulness.  In figurative fashion, Cavett stood up and stood tall in Real Americans, Please Stand Up. He leads by example, you might say, showing his lesser countrymen what America is really about.

All this talk about the mosque reminds me of two things I heard growing up in Nebraska.

I had a 6th grade teacher who referred to American Indians as “sneaky redskins” and our enemies in the Pacific as “dirty Japs.” This abated somewhat after I asked one day in class, “Mrs. G., do you think our parents would like to know that you teach race prejudice?” She faded three shades.

The rest of that year was difficult.

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

These are not proud moments in my heritage. But now, I’m genuinely ashamed of us.

Not proud moments?  Color me skeptical.  Was the story about chastising his 6th grade teacher put in there to point out his own shortcomings?   Please.  Quite the contrary.  In his own mind Cavett is the yardstick by which other Americans may be measured, and it turns out other Americans just aren't measuring up.  In fact, most Americans are repugnant enough to Cavett that he now says he is genuinely ashamed.

The issue that brings Cavett to his present state of distress is the Ground Zero Mosque and the deplorable fact that a substantial majority of Americans believe the construction of a mosque so close to the site of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks is inappropriate.  What's worse, they say so – out loud.  Such a thing is beyond Cavett's comprehension.

I remain amazed and really, sincerely, want to understand this. What can it be that is faulty in so many people’s thought processes, their ethics, their education, their experience of life, their understanding of their country, their what-have-you that blinds them to the fact that you can’t simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one? Can you help me with this?

Let me just step out on this limb and suggest that the wonderful Cavett isn't really serious about wanting help.  Yes, he says he wants to understand, but I suspect he's quite convinced that he understands only too well.  He said so with the mention of his 6th grade heroism.  It's bigotry, he thinks, and on a massive scale.  There is a vastness of moral failure in Americans.  The fault lies in their thought processes, their ethics, and their education.  That "those people" with all of their advantages don't see things his way, why it boggles his mind.

But as is so typical with progressive elites, Cavett misleads by attacking a strawman.  Otherwise the column doesn't work.  It's the constitution and the rule of law, he says.

I like to think I’m not easily shocked, but here I am, seeing the emotions of the masses running like a freight train over the right to freedom of religion — never mind the right of eminent domain and private property.

I have yet to hear anybody suggest that Muslims do not, or should not, have the right to worship as they see fit and to build their places of worship wherever local zoning laws allow. In a rare moment of brevity and clarity, President Obama put it perfectly though he refused to take a position on it. 

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there (near Ground Zero)," Obama said.

That is the question.  Muslims have the right to build it.  Their purpose they say is to bridge the gulf between people of different faiths.  But should they build it?  Wouldn't they more effectively bridge differences by respecting the feelings of others and building the mosque in another location.  That's what they want to do, bridge the differences, isn't it?

Andrew McCarthy, the former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, doesn't think so.  Mr. McCarthy was lead prosecutor in the case of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which resulted in the conviction of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others.  Recently, McCarthy had this to say.

In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood’s American leadership prepared an internal memorandum for the organization’s global leadership in Egypt. It was written principally by Mohamed Akram, a close associate of Sheikh Qaradawi. As Akram put it, the Brotherhood

must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

[...]

The Ground Zero project to erect a monument to sharia overlooking the crater where the World Trade Center once stood, and where thousands were slaughtered, is not a test of America’s commitment to religious liberty. America already has thousands of mosques and Islamic centers, including scores in the New York area — though Islam does not allow non-Muslims even to enter its crown-jewel cities of Mecca and Medina, much less to build churches or synagogues.

The Ground Zero project is a test of America’s resolve to face down a civilizational jihad that aims, in the words of its leaders, to destroy us from within.

Meanwhile, the wonderful Cavett frets that America's image suffers when Americans ask Muslim leaders to build their new mosque somewhere else. Says Cavett,

Set aside for the moment that we are handing such a lethal propaganda grenade to our detractors around the world.

You can’t eat this particular cake and have it, too. The true calamity, of course, is that behavior of this kind allows the enemy to win.

It's mildly shocking to discover that Cavett thinks there is an enemy.  But I have to wonder what war does he suppose we are in, that will be lost on the basis of this "propaganda grenade?"  And who is this enemy?  Can he possibly think there is real a war going on?  Hard to imagine.  More likely, he thinks there is a massive misunderstanding.  A failure born out of the faulty thought processes of faulty Americans prevents Islamic terrorists from understanding the wonderfulness of an America that has Dick Cavett in it.  If only they could see.  Surely there would be world peace.

Let's Not Overreact, Now...

Sunday's Washington Post column by Richard A. Clarke used the occasions of the recent botched bombing attempt in Times Square to urge greater "greater outreach to Muslim communities domestically and around the world."  

In the raw aftermath of a successful attack, it will be very hard for an American president to shift the debate in a more productive and honest direction. Imagine if, after a fatal attack, President Obama responded by proposing greater outreach to Muslim communities domestically and around the world, in an effort to undercut radicalization. That is precisely what we and other nations should be doing, but it would undoubtedly be decried as a weak, starry-eyed reaction by our commander in chief, especially after an attack that revealed deficiencies in our counterterrorism system.

First, is there something dishonest about recognizing that these terrorist attacks originate with radical Islam?  The more evident dishonesty comes from persons in the Obama administration who immediately described one attack as not "part of a broader plot" and the next attack as a "one-off".  Not to mention how thoroughly dishonest it is of Clarke to imply, nine years into our war on terror, that the American Muslim community has been subjected to any systematic discrimination or abuse.  In general, America has bent over backwards to avoid singling out Muslims, starting with George W. Bush who spoke at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. less than a week after the 9/11 attacks.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

That was George Bush.  Mr. Clarke, on the other hand, sounds as if it would be tough to imagine Barack Obama proposing greater outreach in the wake of another successful attack, but didn't Obama spend his entire election campaign preaching outreach?  He said he was going to make us safer by restoring America's image and mending relations with the rest of the world – relations supposedly destroyed by George Bush. He was going to reach out to Iran to convince them to give up pursuit of nuclear weapons.  He went to Cairo to apologize to the Muslim world and to reassure it that a new American policy would emerge.  His first year in office consisted of one apology after another, but is there any indication that any of it has done any good? 

Obama insisted that there would be no preconditions on talks with Iran, but has there been dialog?  Outreach to Iran intended to persuade the mullahs to abandon nuclear development failed.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pretty much told President Barack Obama to stuff it.  Senior U.S. military officials recently predicted that Iran will have a nuclear device within a year and a usable nuclear weapon in three to five years. 

In the meantime there have been three terrorist attacks on American soil in the last six months, two of which failed because of terrorist incompetence.  This is what we get for outreach?

All of this highlights the more disturbing point to Richard A. Clarke's Post article.  No matter what we do, we must face the fact that an attack may eventually succeed, and in that event the important thing is for Americans to be nice.  Here's what he said.

On Christmas Day, a 23-year-old Nigerian engineering student allegedly tried to destroy an airplane flying into Detroit. One week ago, an American citizen of Pakistani origin allegedly attempted to detonate a car bomb in New York's Times Square. Neither effort succeeded -- not because U.S. authorities intercepted the attackers, but because the bombmaking skills of the wannabe terrorists were lacking.

In both instances, much of the subsequent debate has centered on how the attacks were able to get as far as they did. The unfortunate fact is that such cases represent a kind of terrorism that is virtually impossible to disrupt. These attempts will continue, and from time to time one of them will succeed, with many dead and injured. The more relevant question, therefore, is: How will we respond when that car bomb does go off?

I don't think how we respond is the relevant question, particularly from former and current government officials who swore to defend the U.S.  I'm not opposed to turning the other cheek, but it's not the governments job to do it for me.  It's more relevant to ask instead if those attacks were really impossible to disrupt.  In the case of the Christmas bomber, U.S. authorities were given warning, but nothing was done. 

The father, a top Nigerian banker, warned US authorities last month about 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's extreme views, say officials.

US sources confirm a file was opened, but say the information did not warrant placing the accused on a "no-fly" list.

The same is true of the Times Square bomber.  Faisal Shahzad was apparently listed on a U.S government travel travel lookout list starting in 1999 because he brought approximately $80,000 in cash with him into the United States.  In 2008, he was removed from the list, in spite of his frequent trips to Taliban controlled areas of western Pakistan. 

But let's forget all that.  Rather than worry about ways in which or surveillance of terrorists could be improved, Mr. Clarke accepts that a successful terrorist attack will probably occur, and he has a message. A seven part message in fact, but it all boils down this:

The Obama administration will protect America to the extent that budgets allow.  If an attack is successful the administration will "refine our tactics and procedures" but don't expect them overreact by "throwing more money at the problem."  In meantime, don't blame the Obama administration.  In fact, if you do blame Obama you will "be regarded as despicable."

So listen up, America!  Don't "demand overnight success."  "[E]liminating the current terrorist threat will take a generation of diligent effort."  If you happen to lose friends or loved ones to a terrorist bomb, don't whine about it.  Just suck it up and take one for the team!  And whatever you do, don't blame the Obama administration!  That would be just despicable.

The Incoherence Intensifies

Lefty positions have always been exercises in logical contortion, but Obama has raised such reason defying politics to an art form.  In an interview with the perky little Katie Couric, the president defended his war on terror decision making, explaining that he was merely continuing Bush administration practices.

"I think that the most important thing for the public to understand," he told Ms. Couric, "is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11." Mr. Obama went on to add that "190 folks"—folks presumably just like the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks—had been tried and convicted in civilian court during Mr. Bush's tenure.

Leave aside, for just a moment, the substance. Far more arresting is that Mr. Obama now defends himself by invoking a man he has spent the past year blaming for al Qaeda's growth. You know—all those Niebuhrian speeches about how America had gone "off course," "shown arrogance and been dismissive," and "made decisions based on fear rather than foresight," thus handing al Qaeda a valuable recruiting tool.

Others have happily piled on. John Brennan, a career CIA holdover, used his first public appearance last August as Mr. Obama's counterterrorism chief to declare a new dawn. No longer would America's policies serve as "a recruitment bonanza for terrorists." No longer would we be "defining and indeed distorting our entire national security apparatus" because of terrorism. Henceforth, Mr. Obama would abandon the "global war" mindset, and take care not to "validate al Qaeda's twisted worldview."

Isn't it sad that our "watch dog" press went to such great lengths to cast doubt on Sarah Palin's readiness for the vice presidency, while at the same time promoting Barack Obama's experience on the presidential campaign trail as proof of his fitness to be Commander-in-Chief in a time of war.  Our mainstream media have been utterly pathetic, borderline incompetent, and dishonest to boot.  They're trying so hard to disguise the fact the we have an OJT president, and unfortunately, as Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said, he's a slow learner.

Intelligence Bonanza

According to John Yoo, a Bush administration Justice Department official from 2001 to 2003, the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda.

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda.

It's my personal opinion that this case is going to be tried in civilian courts because it provides a rationale for revisiting the torture controversy.  2010 is an election year.  If the Obama Justice Department can move quickly enough, the front pages of our elitist mainstream press can carry lurid headlines describing KSM's torture and abuse at the hands of George Bush -- just in time for Democrats to make it the centerpiece of their 2010 campaign.  Obama and the Democrats have never stopped campaigning against Bush, and by the looks of things they're not going to now.  The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a bit of election year strategy for a party that is very quickly becoming very unpopular.

Public Sides With Cheney

A majority of Americans oppose closing the prison at Guantanamo according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

'In the survey, Americans were inclined to accept the argument by Cheney and former president George W. Bush that the detention center had made the United States safer. By 40%-18%, they said the prison had strengthened national security rather than weakened it.

Those who want the prison to remain open feel more strongly on the subject that those who want to close it. A 54% majority of those polled say the prison shouldn't be closed, and that they'll be upset if the administration moves forward to close it.

Last month, Senate Democrats stripped $80 million to close Gitmo from a spending bill and blocked transfer of detainees to U.S. soil, at least for now.'

That last bit is interesting.  As if Republicans are in favor of closing Guantanamo.

Closing Guantanamo

While there are a myriad of problems that Obama will need to overcome if he is to close Guantanamo, as David Rivkin and Lee Casey suggest, there is no offsetting benefit.

'At least since the 1970s, "progressive" international activists have sought to level the playing field between nation states (especially the U.S. and Israel) and nonstate actors such as the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas. Although international humanitarian law is supposed to apply neutrally to all belligerents, international opinion now gives nonstate actors far more leeway to ignore fundamental norms such as the rule against deliberately targeting civilians. The underlying implication is that terrorist tactics, however regrettable, are justified as the only means of achieving laudable goals like national liberation.

This mindset will not change if Guantanamo closes.'

It is from that progressive activist mindset that Obama formulated a political philosophy.  He is an activist at heart.  It is to that progressive activist mindset that Obama panders with his repeated promises to close Guantanamo.  But, he has been slowly coming to realize as Commander-in-Chief responsible for national security, his job is not to level the playing field.  His awakening in this regard can be observed in his retention of so many Bush administration antiterror policies, after roundly condemning them, of course.

Cheney vs. Obama

I didn't watch President Obama's address at the National Archives last night.  He said that the U.S. went off course in the war on terror.  He argued against the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods and in favor of closing Guantanamo, claiming those things did more harm than good.  Personally, I don't agree with him.

'The president unblinkingly, methodically confronted a string of national-security decisions that have drawn criticism from the political left or right. He called the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay an inherited "mess" that "has weakened American national security" by providing a rallying cry for enemies.'

Actually I think it's been a rallying cry for Democrats more than anybody else. 

Meanwhile former Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at the American Enterprise Institute.

"When President Obama makes wise decisions, as I believe he has done in some respects on Afghanistan, and in reversing his plan to release incendiary photos, he deserves our support," Cheney said. "And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer."

Cheney continued: “Though I'm not here to speak for George W. Bush, I am certain that no one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do. ... What I want to do today is set forth the strategic thinking that drove our policies.”

"Watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said. "To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy.

It's interesting to note that favorable opinions of Cheney are on the rise.  I hope he stays out front on this.

(Updated at 8:07am.)

The Anti-Cheney Campaign

Herd mentality at the Washington Post is a wonder to behold.  Following former Vice President Richard Cheney's appearance on Face the Nation the Post mounted its latest anti-anti-propaganda mission.  Richard Cohen leads off wondering if Mr. Cheney might actually be right, perish the thought, about the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques.

'Cheney, though, is adamant that the very measures that are now deemed illegal did work and that, furthermore, doing away with them has made the country less safe. Cheney said this most recently on Sunday, on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Those policies were responsible for saving lives," he told Bob Schieffer. In effect, Cheney poses a hard, hard question: Is it more immoral to torture than it is to fail to prevent the deaths of thousands?'

Cheney has repeatedly asked for the release of CIA memos that he says describe terrorist attacks that were in the works and how they were prevented.  Obama's refusal to release them argues forcefully that the memos do exist and that they say what Mr. Cheney says they say.  Their release would not reflect well on the sanctimonious scolds who would rather risk American civilian deaths than endure the stain that pouring water on a guy's face might inflict upon their delicate consciences. 

Mr. Cohen, though, says he would like the memos released.  From the tone of his columns I suspect he wants an early start on the task of parsing the sentences so that a plausible counter narrative can be constructed.

'The Obama administration ought to call Cheney's bluff, if it is that, and release the memos. If even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this could be Cheney's time.'

Next out of the gate we get Eugene Robinson performing mental gymnastics.  He don't need no stinking memos.  He's got his story and he's stickin' to it.  In fact, as far as Mr. Robinson is concerned those memos simply do not exist.

'Cheney added that "to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think it's fair to argue -- and I do argue -- that that means in the future we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

This is the crux of Cheney's "argument," and I put the word in quotation marks because it isn't really a valid argument at all. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration approved programs and methods that previously would have been considered illegal or unacceptable: arbitrary and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, waterboarding and other abusive interrogation methods, secret CIA prisons, unprecedented electronic surveillance. Since 2001, there have been no new attacks on what the Bush administration creepily called the "homeland." Therefore, everything that was done in the name of preventing new attacks was justified.

The fallacy lies in the fact that it is impossible for Cheney to prove that anti-terrorism methods within the bounds of U.S. law and tradition would have failed to prevent new attacks. Nor, for that matter, can Cheney demonstrate that torture and other abuses were particularly effective.'

In the topsy-turvey world of Eugene Robinson the irrefutable fact that there have been no successful attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001 pales beside the slender speculative possibility that Bush administration anti-terror policies may not really have been responsible for our safety.  Instead what Mr. Robinson touts as hard fact is that you can't prove that the information couldn't have been gotten in other ways. 

Well, he's actually right.  We can get this kind of information in other ways.  Let's imagine us congratulating ourselves as we admire the wreckage of a smoldering office tower.  "Aren't we just swell.  We didn't have to torture anybody to find out about this plot."  The problem is, there are those who would want us to find these things out a little sooner. 

Meanwhile Dana Milbank in the midst of his attack on Rush Limbaugh, perfectly captured Washington Post attitude toward Dick Cheney.  The irony is priceless.

'As he assumes ever-greater command over the American conservative movement, the high road has not been a common route for Limbaugh. On his show yesterday, he compared Cheney favorably with Bill Clinton: "He is not hot for interns." He discussed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's looks: "She wears Armani clothes -- fashionable. Botox shots -- fashionable." He hurled epithets: "Compliant sycophantic slavish drive by media." He made caricatures of Democrats' positions: "There's just a genuine dislike for this country . . . certainly by a lot of Democrats." And he continued his personal assault on the president's character: "Barack Obama has yet to show in any way how he will control the cost of anything, including his ego."

Though the recent attacks went unmentioned, El Rushbo exulted in his notoriety. He read a quote by H.L. Mencken: "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."'

Exactly.  They all detest Dick Cheney for daring to tell them the truth.

Afterthought:  It is an indisputable fact.  In the opinion of Washington Post writers, waterboarding is torture.  That opinion is not universal.