Ibn Shaykh Al Libi - does that name ring a bell? I'll get back to him.

Let's remember something: Dick Cheney's mindset is "absolute proof can never be a precondition for action." And since he knows nothing is an absolute, how could one entirely refute what he is saying? Can, or has, President Obama, denied enhanced methods of interrogation might work? I've only heard there are other methods. We'll get back that that also.

Let's return to Shaykh al Libi. This individual was snatched-up in Pakistan having fled the Spin Ghar mountains, in Afghanistan (Tora Bora), in late 2001. After initially interrogated by the U.S., he was turned over to Egypt for further "questioning," possibly involving enhanced methods of interrogation - certainly not torture, because Egypt denies that.....yes, they do!

It seems Al Libi provided information that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons production capacity and al-Qaeda. And as everyone should recall, this was cited to justify our run-up to invading Iraq. President Bush himself used this information in a speech, and Colin Powell, also noted this information among the amateurish evidence he presented to the U.N., despite concerns from some American intelligence officers that al Libi was feeding information he wanted us to hear (perhaps someone specifically wanted to hear?). al-Libi later recanted stating he had been tortured. It would seem the information he gave turned out to be false, as some in the intelligence community suspected, since no WMDs were found in Iraq.

Returning to President Obama, who has stated the U.S. does not and will not use torture, which I personally believe is the right path. But who also, interestingly enough, has not ruled-out the use of extraordinary renditions, which could mean taking prisoners/detainees to countries that might use torture.

There seems too much insubstantial explanations not backed-up with reliable background information available from documents we know to be available. I once was tasked on the Fray for saying we should move on - I now recant, and say it's too late for that, and we need to get all the information out for the American public to see, before the next terrorist attack on American soil, or we go to war based on bad and/or phony intelligence.

I enjoy your narrative style.

:-)

A tale well told!

I'm always infuriated by neocons who insist that their theories should not be tested against mere reality. The fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq seems completely inconsequential to Cheney's over-arching theory that they were there. This really distills neocon thinking down to its essence... that "feelings" (oops! they prefer "ideology", or maybe "theory") must always trump poor pedestrian facts.

And, how about that claim that "we've had no attacks since 9/11"??? Whaa? It was Cheney/Bush who smirkingly dismissed the Cole attack (Yes, I know, the actual attack happened during the final weeks of the Clinton administration -- apparently, Cheney/Bush felt that relieved them of all responsibility). Bin Laden was certainly watching when Bush decided to just ignore that little event.

But even worse is the "logic".. I mean, jeeze! We'll NEVER have terrorist attacks between the terrorist attacks! And, why do our media allow Cheney/Bush off the hook for 9/11? Shouldn't that count? It's so similar to Republcian boasts last fall that America enjoyed a wonderful economic boom -- right up until the depression. I guess republicans just reflexively believe it's ungodly to consider them (gulp!) Responsible for any of the results of their policies.

Years ago, I watched Cheney being interviewed about Gulf War I on Frontline. I really liked him in that interview. He was measured, intelligent, made a good case for stopping the war when they did rather than marching on into Bagdad. The trailer for that Frontline juxtiposed Cheney's measured words with Margaret Thatcher saying this:

"Now, just look, there is the aggressor, Saddam Hussein, still in power. There is the President of the United States, no longer in power. There is the Prime Minister of Britain who did quite a lot to get things there, no longer in power. I wonder who won?"

The edit, with their comments back to back, made it clear: Margaret Thatcher had just called him a pussy for leaving Saddam Hussein in power. Personally, I think Cheney came back to the White House with a sense of unfinished business with Iraq. When they won the White House, I believe they were hell bent on a war with Iraq to remove Sadaam, regardless of other factors. 9/11 was a gift in this regard, it put the country in the mood for war, and Cheney was determined not to waste the opportunity. My feeling is that everything else that has happened since then is just justification and gloss, that the real key to understanding Cheney's world view is to understand how stung he felt at being thought of as weak by the cadre of conservative hawks.

Kolmogorov

Frontline interview

We listened to reputed claims of a guy named 'Alibi'. REALLY?

Dick Cheney is paraphrasing a quote. "It's not torture if the (Vice) President orders it." Who does this sound like? Oh yeah, Nixon. And we know how much faith we needed to put into his words.

People listen to him because, firstly, he has the money and powerful connections to get his voice pushed out through the media, and secondly, because, as the previous writer pointed out, he, among several other NeoCon fearmongers, pushes peoples fear and insecurity buttons, often hard enough to get them to not recognize the fragility of their house of lies.

Sad state of affairs, but nothing new. I believe Obama should ignore Cheney as much as possible. Directly responding to him only lends validation to him, where he deserves none.

Tyrtaios-rising:

Don't test my French, it sucks. Feel free to speak German to me as I will pick it up again from my experience working with the Bosch.

Interesting radio on NPR today while I was motoring down to an interview with a company in Ohio. Personnel Director was pretty and it was hard to keep my mind focused on the interview given the woman before me. Vivant may be the word to describe her?

The battle is to call it policy, torture as a policy by administrations and not so much an action. Sidestep the action or the issue and call it policy. If Obama backs away from this now and does not deal with it nose to nose, other adminstrations will use the same escape. Cheney is attempting to rechannel the argument and Obama must bring him back forcefully.

Good to see you again.

Greetings run75441. While Cheney was vice-president, he was very good at shaping the debate. He is now shaping the political battle space on the use of torture and its justification, and in doing so has agitated the Obama administration, and this has allowed him to position himself as the first leader or knowledgable sage.

President Obama needs to realize that Dick Cheney views bad outcomes are not the product of bad choices, and turn that on him. The President cannot withdraw on this issue. Because our use of torture was a bad choice, and it has done nothing but create bad outcomes.

It's always good to chat with you - Toujour Fidele : - )

Okay, we get it—the author hates the VP and is enthralled with Obama, but his arguments are vacant and misconceived—all of his supporting points are mischaracterizations—typical of liberal talking points. But then to his far left fans, he can get away with blah, blah, blah, blah—Chaney sucks; and blah, blah, blah, blah Obama - COOL!

The reason thoughtful Americans listen to the VP is that his message is true, and he speaks from experience and success in fighting terrorism, and keeping us safe. Obama, with little experience, is finding during presidential OJT, that many of his “lofty ideals” proposed from his campaign are not viable. Liberals hate that they really have nothing credible to counter that President Bush and VP Chaney have prevented any further terrorist attack in the US on their watch. Other than their psychotic hate for Chaney, that liberals get so crazy when he speaks, is because the VP is so insightful and effective.

The author seems confused whether there is a debate or not, that waterboarding and other interrogation methods were an additional effective tool in successful Bush/Chaney fight against terrorism. Although the author is confused, the rest of us are not—as Al Gore and the other phony “environmentalists” would say, “The debate is over.” The liberal objections to interrogation are dangerously misinformed and childish.

That Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have been used as terrorist recruiting tools is really stupid. That “everyone acknowledges this” is untrue. The far left has only been able to exploit this for their own self-serving agenda because conservatives have failed to properly characterize this. In a war, we only hope that when we use effective methods to win, that angers our enemies. In a war, we can’t let the emotions of the enemy we are fighting affect our strategy or deter us. We can’t wage a serious war that only uses a strategy that pleases our enemy! As far as treatment of captured enemy combatants, the ludicrous liberal attempt to portray parity of our behavior versus the Al Qaida Islamic fascists, is ridiculous! On the bell curve of behavior, we are on the far end of the curve compared to the extreme barbarism of the terrorists on the opposite side of the curve! Should we realistically be concerned about making a few of the captured enemy who have avowed to ruthlessly kill every American, uncomfortable?! This is misplaced concern that makes no sense. Do the far left liberals really hate America so much that they have more concern for terrorists than the safety of Americans? Do the far-left liberals really think that we will believe them when they claim that the terrorists, with no morality or civility in human treatment of any kind, are going to be appalled by the kind treatment at Guantanamo that Americans provide?! Yet another dumb argument from the left.

Chaney’s claim that Obama just uses empty words in his proclamation of protecting America from terrorism is pretty solid, because Obama seems to be systematically canceling all the anti-terrorism practices that have been used so effectively during Bush/Chaney, and Obama seems to be taking us back to the vulnerable pre 9-11 days. Liberals will have to go into major-mischaracterization mode, if their beloved Obama goes down in the flames of adverse public opinion, if another attack like 9-11 occurs, because of Obama’s inexperience and liberal foolishness.

My question is "Did anybody die of waterboarding?" Prisoners did die and they always came up with something. But can we trust that they gave us the real story behind the deaths?

Excellent post especially the recognition that we can't simply "move one." It's the old Kantian imperative of what would be the result if the behavior is repeated by others. I was surprised to read that Cheney is only 68 years old. We must "move on" in other ways but as with Pinochet we must never forget and if it takes to the end of his miserable life he must be held accountable to discourage others who would do likewise.

Something to remember in all of this talk...White House attorrneys David Addington and John Yoo, John Ashcroft, Andy Card, Cheney, and Roberto Gonzales were some of the real authors of the radical right-wing decisions later blamed on President Bush. Too bad there were enough Americans to vote TWICE for this ignorant cowboy.

It's imperative these days to have a president that is extremely intelligent, articulate, and above all moral.