Dick Cheney's Memoir

Here's a surprise. A retired politician writes a self-serving memoir in which he gives his version of events, while criticizing others. I know, that's just so unusual. But in this case it's Dick Cheney, so the sputtering outrage has already started.

It's pretty funny to read all of the whining, the sniveling about so-called "war crimes," Halliburton, and all the other hatred directed at Cheney. As a general rule I tend to avoid political memoirs, because there are more interesting things to read than packs of lies. But all the attacks on Cheney are almost making me want to read his book. I suspect it will have that effect on a large number of people. Cheney will probably be laughing all the way to the bank as his critics help boost sales.

Mixed Feelings About Cheney's Latest

Former Vice President Dick Cheney gave a long speech last night at the American Enterprise Institute. As usual, he defended his administration's record on national security policy, and sharply criticized the Obama administration. Every time Cheney gives a speech, I react with mixed feelings.

The first thing I always think upon hearing Dick Cheney is, where were these vigorous defenses of Bush administration policy during the Bush administration? Cheney continues to point out the obvious -- although the Bush Derangement Syndrome crowd tries to pretend otherwise -- that regardless of its many faults, it successfully defended the U.S. from any follow-up terror strikes after 9/11. I'm not going to go through the speech point-by-point, because I've addressed almost all of Cheney's arguments before. Most of the criticism of the Obama administration is well-aimed and effective. But the biggest problem is that it comes from Dick Cheney.

I understand why Cheney feels the need to speak out, given the Obama administration's ridiculous and continual attempts to blame any problem on Bush. But every time Cheney speaks, he reminds people about the Bush administration, helps keep BDS alive, and gives new life to Obama's strategy of blaming the past.

Obama and the Democrats have slipped in the polls primarily because of their inability to do anything about the economy. As long as job losses continue, and people see the economy languishing, Democrats are going to get most of the blame -- because they are now in charge. The health care debate has mobilized a significant number of independents to join with Republicans in opposing the administration. They are opposed to Democratic policies, but they are not and were not fans of the Bush administration. In my opinion, now is not the time to go on the attack regarding national security policy, at least not an attack led by former members of the Bush administration. 

Speculation About Cheney's Memoirs

The Washington Post has a report with the highly misleading title of "Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush." When I saw the title I read it to see what the ex-vp had to say about the former president, only to find something missing -- actual statements about Bush by Dick Cheney. Instead I found hearsay about things Cheney supposedly said in private conversations, and speculation disguised as reporting. The entire article is much ado about nothing.

Most political memoirs can be loosely described as self-serving packs of lies, and I expect nothing different from Dick Cheney. I won't be surprised if he has some criticism of Bush, although I don't expect it to be all that harsh. But if he follows the standard memoir format, it will be necessary to point out how things would have gone much better if only his ideas and advice had been followed more closely. Making that case naturally requires criticizing others.

BDS & The CIA

The crowd still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome is all over the story about the CIA concealing the existence of some unspecified program from Congress, supposedly at the order of Dick Cheney. Here's the reliably laughable John Cole at Balloon Juice,

guess the extent of the criminality and the confirmation of Bush as puppet President is news...one analyst stated that the reason Washington is terrified to investigate this is because they know that so many laws were broken so flagrantly that any investigation will lead to the indictment of Bush and Cheney, and that, for obvious reasons, terrifies the Democrats (you can listen to that piece here). It would simply consume Washington and destroy Obama’s agenda

Left-wingers actually believe this stuff. But those not infected with BDS might point out a couple of problems with that sort of "analysis."

First off, the Bush administration did nothing clearly illegal. They had a legal argument for everything they did. You would never know that from reading anything on the left. Leftists and other Bush-haters love to pretend that the Bush administration committed all sorts of illegalities. They believe this so fervently that, as usual, they confuse their opinion for fact. But in actual fact, although the Bush adminstration operated in many legal gray areas and made various borderline decisions, there was no single action that was unquestionably illegal. That's why there won't be any prosecution of Bush or Cheney. Rational people understand that there just isn't any clearcut evidence of criminal actions, regardless of the screeching of the hysterical left.

Second, the CIA story in question clearly illustrates how BDS removes any ability to logically analyze things related to the Bush administration -- as if we needed another example. Right in the article, apparently ignored by BDS cases like Cole, we find the following:  

the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”

For people who don't believe conspiracy theories about Dick Cheney being a criminal mastermind controlling a puppet president, the above quote seems to indicate that the failure to report a CIA program was not in fact illegal. Once again you have a statute with leeway for interpretation. Disagreeing with the judgment of the Bush administration, or hating Cheney with fanatical intensity doesn't make something illegal.

Dick Cheney: Pro-Gay Marriage

Dick Cheney endorsed gay marriage yesterday as long as it is handled at the state level. with no role for the federal government.

"people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

The Washington Post notes that Cheney's positions puts  him "to the left of the current president on the issue." Cheney is looking better all the time.

Dick Cheney's Big Speech

I've been a harsh critic of Dick Cheney, and am on record as wishing he would shut up and go away. But after this latest speech, my opinion is changing. I strongly endorse much of what he said. These are things that need to be said by a prominent national politician willing to stand up and say them, rather than just minor anonymous bloggers like myself. How we protect the country is more important than politics. If Cheney is the only one willing to put himself out there, then so be it.

Having said that, I have a couple significant points of disagreement with the speech. Rather than cheer the parts I liked, I'll focus on the weak spots. Although not part of the speech itself, my first thought was: why didn't we hear speeches like this when the Bush administration was in power? Where were the point-by-point detailed rebuttals of attacks then? Why did it take until 2009 for Dick Cheney to effectively defend the policies of his administration? But on to the specifics of the speech. Referring to the release of interrogation memos, Cheney said,

somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question. Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release. For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

With little regard for national security, the Obama administration released only memos which cast the Bush administration in a bad light. Cheney rightly objects to this blatant political hatchet job, but his remedy is ill-considered. If you are going to argue that releasing classified memos damaged national security, it doesn't make sense to ask for the release of still more memos, even if those memos support your position. By doing so, Cheney puts the justification of his policies above national security -- just as Obama did.

The former vice president also said,

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.

This is a nice soundbite, but it's fundamentally illogical. There is always a middle ground. The Bush administration position itself was a middle position between those on the right who would have taken much more aggressive measures against terrorism, and everyone to the left. The middle may shift to the left or right, but it always exists.

Finally we come to one of my strongest disagreements with Cheney over the issue of torture.

Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

I absolutely despise this weasel-like argument even though I understand why he made it. In my opinion, a defense of Bush administration interrogation policy should not rest on legalism or hair-splitting definitions of what is or is not torture. The rest of his speech already made the case for why extreme measures were necessary for individuals like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I know it will never happen, and I said this about Bush also. But what Cheney should have said was,

If you want to call it torture, call it torture. We ordered it because given the circumstances and our best analysis of the situation, it was necessary to extract intelligence critical to protect the United States. A terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is entitled to no rights or legal consideration, especially during wartime. I wouldn't hesitate to order waterboarding again. And if waterboarding hadn't worked, I would have considered stronger measures.

Good Article on Dick Cheney

Yesterday Carl Cannon wrote one of the very few balanced articles I've seen about Dick Cheney. Most comment on the former vice president is in the form of vilification, with a few resolute defenses mixed in from the right. But here's Cannon:

As I formulate this argument, I realize that I disagree with Cheney on the two great issues he confronted as vice president. The first was his conception of executive power. The second concerns the tactics the United States should employ in the war on terror. So let me be clear in saying that what I would like to defend is Dick Cheney's character.

His theory is that the events of 9/11, particularly Cheney's authorization to the Air Force to shoot down Flight 93 -- even though it wasn't carried out -- profoundly affected him.

Dick Cheney resolved to do whatever it would take to protect this country, regardless of the cost to his reputation or popularity. I respect him for that, and I empathize with him.

Cannon is one of the few people writing in the media who disagrees with Cheney on executive power, the role of the vice president, torture, and probably other issues as well, yet doesn't assume bad motives. As he writes,

we definitely do damage to ourselves when we substitute political debate with name-calling and ad-hominem attacks. I think Dick Cheney is wrong on important matters. I also think he is a patriot. And I hate to think that we have lost the ability to hold two such opinions in our heads at one time.

I'll second that.

Richard Cohen Continues to Be Intellectually Honest

Richard Cohen has another column up in which he continues to demonstrate a level of intellectual honesty rarely found among torture opponents.  He asks, "What if Cheney's Right'? And that's a very good question. It's usually ignored by those who confuse their opinions with fact and pretend they know more than those who had full access to all classified information. Here's Cohen:

Torture is a moral abomination, and President Obama is right to restate American opposition to it. But where I reserve a soupçon of doubt is over the question of whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually work. That they do not is a matter of absolute conviction among those on the political left, who seem to think that the CIA tortured suspected terrorists just for the hell of it.

Cohen is obviously no fan of Cheney, and thinks he has no credibility, but he doesn't inhabit the same ideological dreamworld as many of his compatriots on the left. Earlier in the piece Cohen writes,

Yet I have to wonder whether what he is saying now is the truth -- i.e., torture works.

If he cared to actually look into it and do five minutes of research -- something most torture opponents haven't bothered with -- he would find that there are numerous examples of torture working to extract correct information. The only real question is whether torture worked in these particular cases, as Cheney and other officials claim.  But at least Cohen is willing to ask the question, rather then making an unfounded assumption about the answer.

Cheney on Powell

Dick Cheney refuses to take my advice and keeps going on talk shows. I hate defending him, but people are jumping on a remark he made about Colin Powell.

"Well if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh," Cheney told moderator Bob Schieffer. "My take on it was Colin had already left the party -- I didn't know he was still a Republican."

A somewhat taken-aback Schieffer asked: "You think he's not a Republican?"

Politico describes this as "an extraordinary public swipe at Colin Powell." That just ridiculous. Colin Powell took an "extraordinary swipe" at Republicans when he endorsed a liberal Democrat for president. There's nothing unusual at all about Cheney saying he didn't know Powell was still a Republican. What evidence is there that he is? He voted Democratic, and has had nothing but criticism for the GOP since. Has he had a single word to say in opposition to Obama's agenda?

As for Cheney's comparison between Powell & Rush Limbaugh, Cheney is correct. I don't like Limbaugh, but there's no question he's a Republican. Powell appears to be a Democrat who hasn't gotten around to changing his registration yet.

Dick Cheney Not Helping - Again

Former Vice President Cheney weighed in on the CIA memos issue yesterday, calling for the release of classified information demonstrating the success of interrogation efforts. This episode demonstrates yet again why I wrote this post last month, urging Dick Cheney to keep his mouth shut and retire to private life.

Many on the right, and former CIA leaders, have criticized President Obama's decision to release classified CIA documents as an attack on the secrecy of the agency, pointing out that the operational secrets of the CIA need to be protected. Releasing those memos does no good and could do harm. But here comes Dick Cheney, arguing that we need to declassify still more memos.  This call is totally self-serving. Since his administration ordered the interrogation techniques in question, the former vice-president wants to release success stories that would vindicate his decisions. That's understandable, but it would still be a bad policy decision. Throughout his administration, Dick Cheney did what he thought was in the interests of the U.S. regardless of criticism. He never seemed to care much what people thought. But now that he's out of power, the unhinged attacks of the left are getting to him. He wants to answer the terrorist rights supporters with evidence, even though that would mean more breaches of CIA secrecy. Setting a precedent that classified CIA memos can be released to justify administration decisions is a terrible idea. Just because Obama was wrong, doesn't mean Cheney needs to make the situation worse. 

Unsolicited Advice For Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney was on television this weekend harshly criticizing the Obama administration. I know it's difficult for Cheney to watch the Obama amateur hour, and I believe some of his criticisms are valid. But the best thing Cheney could do for the GOP is to shut his mouth and return to an undisclosed location for the foreseeable future.

Setting aside the fact that it has traditionally been considered classless for an outgoing administration to immediately start criticizing its replacement, Cheney is a terrible spokesman for the GOP. Every time he opens his mouth it reminds people of the unpopular Bush administration, and allows Obama to dismiss even valid criticism, because it's coming from Cheney. Dick Cheney needs to look in the mirror. When he does he'll see one of the main reasons the country is stuck with the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress. Cheney had his chance at GOP leadership and fouled it up royally, helping dig Republicans a hole that they haven't yet begun to dig out of.

Mr. Former Vice President, If you want to help Republicans regain power, please do us all a favor and shut up, stay off the television, stop doing interviews, and return to private life. Go do some hunting or something (a bit more carefully of course). Keeping a low profile is the best thing you can do for the GOP.

Dick Cheney -- Keeping BDS alive

Dick Cheney did an interview with Politico and warned that Obama administration policies will make it more likely that the U.S. will be attacked. Naturally this produced immediate howls of outrage on the left. Any time Cheney so much as opens his mouth, he causes a BDS outbreak. One of the more amusing responses came from Spencer Ackerman at Attackerman, who is usually good for some laughs. Ackerman's post is called, "Someone is Lying." I wonder who he means? He writes

Barely two weeks out of office and Dick Cheney is already mongering fear.

That's right, warning about the threat of possible future terrorist attacks is "fearmongering." What about hysterically predicting economic ruin if Democratic spending bills don't pass? Well, that's just fine. Ackerman, like most on the left, is oblivious to hypocrisy unless it comes from Republicans.

Ackerman goes on to whine about Cheney saying that 11-12% of Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorism, claiming that Cheney's figures have been "debunked." They haven't; they're highly debatable. He says the true figure is actually 4-5%. Hey, no problem then. Let's just turn them all loose. But enough with Ackerman's nonsense. What did Cheney say?

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry”

Dick Cheney may have been wrong about many things (like his extreme theory of a unitary executive), but he's right on target here. There are indeed many people more concerned with terrorist "rights" than protecting the U.S. Read almost any left-wing blog, or numerous libertarian ones. Cheney also points out that defending the country is

“a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

He's correct again. Unfortunately the usual suspects think we can fight terrorist enemies through neat, tidy, legalistic rules.  Rather than recognizing that a struggle against scattered terrorist non-state actors requires operating in gray areas, they'd rather tie the hands of the U.S.

Cheney scores another telling point.

“The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy."

I'm not certain the Obama administration is as naive as he thinks, but I believe this point is critical. I would go farther than Cheney, and say that the U.S. needs to be not just respected but feared. We should welcome the hatred of many of those who hate the U.S. If they don't hate us we are doing something wrong.

The standard response to everything Cheney says from the left is that Bush administration policies have made us less safe. You'll hear this garbage repeated endlessly like some sort of mantra. This is typical of what passes for left-wing logical reasoning. Regardless of all the mistakes and incompetence of the Bush administration, this charge is complete nonsense. No matter what you think of the morality or legality of Bush administration actions, the fact remains that there was not another major terrorist attack on the U.S. after 9/11 -- period. Even lousy administrations do some things right.

The Cheney - Wallace Interview Part II

Here's Part II of my look at Vice President Cheney's recent interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News.

When asked about the effectiveness of the controversial measures taken by the administration, Cheney responds:

the actions that we took, based on the President's decisions and based on some outstanding work by the intelligence community and by the military, has produced a safe seven-and-a-half years, and I think the record speaks for itself.

.  I've seen this dismissed out of hand by various commentators as an empty justification for illegal actions.  In my opinion, those views are nothing more than baseless partisan bias.  Just because Cheney didn't list a bunch of specifics detailing how intelligence was used, doesn't mean the actions taken were ineffective.  Once again, Cheney is entitled to claim credit for preventing another direct attack on the U.S., regardless of what you think of his methods.

There is a long exchange between Cheney & Wallace regarding the administration's cooperation and conflict with the other two branches.  I think there are couple of key points covered.  First, Cheney makes another case for war powers based on the U.S. being at war after 9/11, rather than facing a law enforcement situation.  He then argues that detainees were not covered by the Geneva Convention, and that enemy combatants can be held for the duration of the war.  Unlike some, I find Cheney's arguments reasonable on principle.  The problems lie with the nature of the war(s) and the specific actions taken by the administration. They handled things in a haphazard fashion, in a way that often maximized conflict with the other two branches, and compounded the difficulties thru secrecy.  Cheney's words clearly demonstrate that his attitude was that the executive would do whatever it thought best until stopped by the courts or Congress.  That's not exactly a recipe for success in a government based on three coequal branches.

Overall the interview is very interesting, despite the fact that much is just typical self-justification by a political leader.  But the interview also shows again the gray areas in which the administration operated, and the shaky basis for its extreme claims of executive power.  

The Cheney - Wallace Interview Part I

Cheney's recent interviews have gotten quite a bit of attention in the blogosphere.  Here's my take on the recent interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News.

I'm going to skip the beginning parts about the economy.  I totally disagree with the administration's response to the economic crisis/recession, and in my opinion they don't have the slightest idea what they are doing.  The national security aspects of the interview are the most contentious anyway.  Cheney states that

We didn't set out to achieve the highest level of polls that we could during the course of this administration. We set out to do what we thought was necessary and essential for the country.

I take him at his word on that.  This is where I differ from extreme critics.  Although I think the administration has been lousy overall, and highly incompetent in some areas, I do not ascribe bad motives to its actions. I think that Cheney, (and Bush), did the things they did because they thought they were acting in the best interests of the country.  Cheney goes on to say

I think the fact that we were able to protect the nation against further attacks from al Qaeda for seven-and-a-half years is a remarkable achievement.

True.  If you want to blame the administration for not preventing 9/11, for all their various screwups, and for the economic crash happening on their watch, it's only fair to give them credit for preventing another attack on the U.S.  I think that's a major accomplishment, but it's also one of the administration's only great accomplishments.  Although if you are a Democrat, one of its great accomplishments was delivering Congress & the Presidency to Democratic control, and at least temporarily, putting the GOP in a big hole.

Cheney makes his case for the expanded war powers of the executive branch, vis a vis the other branches of government.  He argues

If you think about what Abraham Lincoln did during the Civil War, what FDR did during World War II. They went far beyond anything we've done in a global war on terror

 That's true, but the problem with that argument is twofold. First of all, just because Lincoln and FDR were able to get away with certain things, doesn't mean all future presidents should also be able to exceed their constitutional authority. Second, a civil war is always a special case, and World War Two was a declared war -- the last war that we actually entered under Congress' constitutionally-specified powers.  An undeclared war against nebulous terrorist enemies is not the same situation.  And a Congressional resolution is not the same thing as a formal declaration of war.

The vice-president argues that

you're fully justified in setting up a terrorist surveillance program to be able to intercept the communications of people who are communicating with terrorists outside the United States. I think you can have a robust interrogation program with respect to high-value detainees.

I agree with him in a broad sense, in that the executive should and does have the power to do such things.  The problem comes in the exact details.  Just because the executive has the power to do them, doesn't mean the other two branches have no say.  For example, the executive has the power to set up interrogation practices to collect intelligence.  But the judiciary has the power to determine the legality of such actions.  One power doesn't cancel out the others, as Cheney seems to believe. 

Then we get to the most commented-on section of the interview, where the vice president basically says that "as a general proposition," anything the executive does to protect the country is legal.  I agree with other critics who see this as an extreme claim of almost unlimited executive power.  There is no constitutional basis for his assertions.  And again we come back to the fact that we are not even in a declared war. Accepting Cheney's claim would mean that any time we are engaged in hostilities, the executive branch can basically do whatever it wants and ignore the other branches. During the exchange, Cheney also puts forth an intellectually dishonest argument by using the nuclear football example.  He says that the president

could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody, he doesn't have to call the Congress, he doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.

I'm sure Dick Cheney knows that the president has that nuclear authority in order to respond to a nuclear attack on the U.S.  It does not in any way mean that he has the authority to initiate an attack on his own responsibility.  

Cheney goes on to attack the War Powers act as unconstitutional  -- pretty funny coming from someone who has just made an argument for unhindered executive power based on nothing found in the constitution. The War Powers act was Congress' lame attempt to get back some of the power they voluntarily surrendered by giving up their consitutional right to declare war.  But that's another issue.

The interview continues into some specific actions taken by the administration.  I'll adress them in Part 2.