Remember Cheney's claim that "secret memos" would vindicate him?
Not only is that a low blow politically, because no matter what Obama releases Cheney could always claim the existance of "secret memos" that proved his points, regardless of actual existance, but it is just plain unsubstantiated.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has seen those "secret memos" that Cheney speaks of.
Levin, speaking at the Foreign Policy Association's annual dinner in New York on Wednesday, said an investigation by his committee into detainee abuse charges over the use of the techniques -- now deemed torture by the Obama administration -- "gives the lie to Mr. Cheney's claims."
The Michigan Democrat told the crowd that the two CIA documents that Cheney wants released "say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of abusive techniques."
"I hope that the documents are declassified, so that people can judge for themselves what is fact, and what is fiction," he added.
A former State Department official has told CNN that the main purpose of the Bush-era interrogations was finding a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that the interrogation program began in April and May of 2002, and Cheney's office kept close tabs on the questioning.
"Its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda," Wilkerson wrote in The Washington Note, an online political journal.
Levin...said the enhanced interrogations have hurt America's image.
"Cheney's world view, which so dominated the Bush years and dishonored our nation, gained a little traction last week -- enough to persuade me to address it head-on here tonight," Levin said. "I do so because if the abusive interrogation techniques that he champions, the face of which were the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib, if they are once more seen as representative of America, our security will be severely set back."
Read the whole article here.
14 comments:
And with the ability to bend media perception, obama is sure to win. This article says a whole bunch of nothing. I'm not sure why you hate Cheney so much, but since you've never had to fight at all, maybe you should consider leaving this one alone.
And this article says nothing. Of course the memos don't talk about number of lives saved. Do you really think that the CIA puts an estimate on number of lives saved at the end of interrogations?
Levin is making a tool out of you and the rest of your ilk that are salivating to get at the GWB administration for fixing a problem started under clinton and her husband.
He knows your undying loyalty to see the U.S. made a fool of and is using it by saying nothing about anything.
I can't comment here anymore, it's getting too silly.
James: You say that Cheney lies. Is it not possible that Levin is lying? I'm sorry but I have a tough time with this he said, she said stuff. Until I see actual PROOF I'm not going to believe a bunch of politicans who are just trying to cover their butts.
The biggest thing for me, Pam, is that Levin didn't really say anything of substance. He doesn't have to back up anything he is saying because the commie in charge has his back.
Cheney told us Saddam was involved in 911. The man is a serial liar. "The insurgency is in it's last throes."
Cheney will say anything regardless of truth to support his views and agenda.
The righties refuse to see anything bad about this guy simply because he says he's also a righty. I know it makes life simpler for the simple to just let others do the thinking for them.
Um, truth? Once again you missed my point, but that's ok. Re read what I said, or keep your trap shut.
Blue, Pam, I think all involved are not telling the whole story.
I think Cheney started it though, by coming out and saying that Obama reversing something they did and saying "but certain memos say blah blah blah" and now Levin saying "no it doesn't"...
Both just say a bunch of nothing. They are just fighting accusations against the other that are baseless, on both sides.
Blue, just because you disagree with something doesn't make it silly.
As for hating, I don't hate Bush. I don't even dislike him, really. But Cheney? I think he's a self-serving skeez who is only trying to further his own ambitions by eroding confidence in the current admin. Cheney is a politician, nothing more. From older posts I've shown why I dislike him.
It is silly and baseless aside from not agreeing with it.
The current president is doing his best to create this diversion for left leaning people to be used as attack dogs with the Cheney thing.
BTW, looks like the SC in CA ruled in favor of voters in CA on gay marriage.
Both just say a bunch of nothing. They are just fighting accusations against the other that are baseless, on both sides.
James: That’s what I meant by he said, she said, only in this case it’s he said, he said. I’m tired of all the “crap” flying around without anything to back it up. I want someone to produce some proof so that we know who is telling the truth.
What ambitions do you think Cheney has, James? President in 2012? He’s way too old. He’s done with any political ambitions. I truly think he wants to defend what he believed was the right thing at the right time.
Blue:
I'm not out to get the GWB admin for anything. While I disagree with what they did, I truly think Bush was only trying to do what he thought was best.
Cheney however only tried to line his pockets, as he's always done.
The "you've never had to fight" argument is silly. If we required only soldiers to make decisions on military matters we'd have a military state. That's why we have a civilian commander in chief, and that's why the military is also subject to a civilian congress, elected by civilians.
It's gotta be a mix of civilians and soldiers making policy.
And while I've never fought in the military, I do have family and close friends who have. One of my good friends lost his leg over there.
Pam, I think both Cheney and Levin lie. They are politicians. It's synonymous.
Blue: Neither one can or will back up their allegations. The problem here is that Cheney, Gore, and Clinton all came to the forefront after their admin left power. But only Cheney has actively criticized the current admin. I didn't see Clinton criticizing Bush when he came into office, nor Gore.
Maybe the reason I dislike Cheney has to do with the fact that he's a hypocritical, self-serving politician.
When the time comes for Obama, I'll be there too. I hate double standards and hypocrisy. Read my last post. I criticized Obama for something I don't agree with. More of that will come. But when he's out of office and if he starts trying to criticize the current admin I'll be just as ticked.
James: I think you're feeding the spin machine here.
I don't know the whole truth on Cheney, and I probably never will. But when you're quoting ignorant sluts that confuse interrogation with detainee abuse, it fails the smell test:
...if the abusive interrogation techniques that he champions, the face of which were the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib...At the heart, it's equating something that was deemed acceptable by the Bush administration (waterboarding, for example) with something they prosecuted the guards over (Abu Ghraib).
While a case could be made on both the war and interrogation (even if I disagree with it), you show foolishness to quote the ignorant partisans when you try to do so.
Perhaps we should start having only those who did fight make decisions. I think Odierno and Abrahms can make better decisions about how and when to fight than GWB and especially love and peace community organizers.
Well BPB, with that thinking you no doubt voted for John Kerry in 2004.
Since he never actually went to war, just filmed it, I couldn't, with a good conscience, vote for him.
Post a Comment