The Last Man Who Should Be Talking On Terror

Dick Cheney, on the other hand, is completely wrong about the Warren Terrah and continues to be as wrong about it now as he was eight years ago.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about “values.” Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

No Dick, they were trying to get them to admit they were in cahoots with Saddam Hussein so we could invade Iraq. We did it to get revenge for 9/11, to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for Bush, to kick the shit out of some Ragheaded Sunzabitches to make America feel good. Those were out "values".

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

They saved American lives? You mean the ones we sent to Iraq to die for this man? They saved us from terrorists we convicted legally in a court of law proving they were in fact terrorists?

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe – it’s no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

Every lead, like the ones you got in August 2001 that Bin Laden was "determined to attack". You followed up on that lead, alright. Good job saving American lives there, Dick.

Still spouting the same tired 9/11 war rhetoric, still spouting the same old pointless "24" Jack Bauer garbage, still saying that America must treat every lead as a 100% certainly of lost American lives while ignoring 9/11 intel, still claiming to speak for the intel community that it co-opted and corrupted and abused and ignored when they warned him about 9/11 happening.

There is no person on Earth less qualified to criticize the Obama administration's national security policy than the man that failed to stop 9/11 and then manipulated the intel community to cover a program of failures, of torture, and of illegal atrocities designed to cover the ass of the President and his men.

[UPDATE] What Iggy said.