More on Pelosi and the Torture Briefings: An Ex-CIA Dog Refused to Bark

Cheney and his right-wing friends have lied so often about so much that it's astonishing that various news organizations still seem to take them seriously. How is this possible? Profits? Rating wars? The politics of owners? Who knows.

To be honest, at this late date, Cheney, Limbaugh, Gingrich and others are simply an embarrassment to our nation and our history. But there are things worth noting.

First, Pelosi is probably telling the truth on not knowing about waterboarding in 2002. Former Senator Bob Graham seems to back up her version. Last month, S.W. Anderson of Oh!Pinion noticed a post by Greg Sargent and wrote:

The latest inconvenient truth undermining GOP attacks comes from Porter Goss, who headed the House Intelligence Committee in 2002, and who was present at the same Sept. 4, 2002, briefing Pelosi received without being told torture was being used — just as she tells it.

Goss refused to defend Pelosi but he also refused to deny her version. It's the case of the dog who didn't bark. If Pelosi were not telling the truth, Goss would have found a way to say so. (Goss became CIA Director in 2004 after George Tenet left. I'm speculating but Goss has his own legal problems because of the Duke Cunningham and Dusty Foggo connection; he came out clean but cannot afford to draw too much attention to himself).

It's been my contention that Dick Cheney could orchestrate exactly what Congress was told and that he was throwing enough of his weight around that any CIA report written would be a version convenient for his own purpose. We already know that during 2002-04 Cheney, Rumsfeld and others were playing political games in terms of what briefers from the executive branch were telling Congress. As one example, if I remember this right, the intelligence committee would be told one thing behind closed doors and when difficult questions were raised, the Pentagon, as an example, would say the issue was being discussed with the armed services committee and because of the sensitive nature of the discussions, they couldn't talk about it any further; later, they would pull the same trick behind closed doors with the armed services committee, claiming they could not discuss certain issues that has been discussed with the intelligence committee. Because members of each committee could not legally discuss such matters with members of another committee, no one could compare notes. Cute.

We now learn that Cheney was present at several briefings of Congress about the torture program in 2005, though it's not clear exactly who were at these meetings. Via the Los Angeles Times, here's the story from Paul Kane and Joby Warrick of The Washington Post:

Cheney's role in helping handle intelligence issues in the Bush administration has been well documented, particularly his advocacy for the use of aggressive methods and warrantless wiretapping against suspected terrorists. But his hands-on role in defending the interrogation program to lawmakers has not been previously publicized.

The CIA made no mention of the former vice president's role in documents delivered to Capitol Hill last month which listed every lawmaker who had been briefed on "enhanced interrogation techniques" since 2002. For meetings that were overseen by Cheney, the agency told the intelligence committees that information about who oversaw those briefings was "not available."

(snip)

The CIA declined to comment on why Cheney's presence in meetings was left out of the records. One senior intelligence official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said identities of individual briefers are intentionally concealed in all cases -- names do not appear in any of the CIA documents that describe congressional briefings. In at least some cases, he added, the identity of the briefer was never recorded in the agency's internal records. For all but seven of the 40 meetings listed, however, the documents outlined which agency led the briefing and which provided support.

If things are left out of the records, they can just as easily be slipped into the record, particularly if vague language is used. Although the meetings Cheney oversaw were in 2005, we can assume that Cheney asked to see any report of those meetings and got any changes he asked for. He may have done the same in 2002 and other times as well whether he attended those meetings or not. Just the fact that critical information, such as Cheney's presence, are left out of the reports obviously makes these reports somewhat suspect. Even if it's acceptable procedure, it's a case of far too much deniability and far too much room for manipulation. Perfect conditions, I might add, for someone like Cheney. It's reasonable to wonder if Cheney, in 2002, had meetings with the briefers before the meetings with Congress as well.

In my mind, George W. Bush is the most failed president in American history. But much of that failure can be traced to the behavior, stupidity and antics of people like Dick Cheney and his good buddy, Donald Rumsfeld. I have talked before about my gut reaction when in 2004 Rumsfeld was expressing his regrets about what happened in Abu Ghraib. Rumsfeld wasn't unhappy that the Geneva conventions were thrown out the window; he was unhappy that pictures were taken.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were both a part of the culture of torture. What is astonishing is how able these two clowns were at pushing and pulling levers and how profoundly stupid they were at the same time. We're now five years later, and one would have to do some work to pull out the facts which I know are still there in the records, but Cheney and Rumsfeld were fools if they thought the torture could be kept secret. The secret in 2004 was already out and it was out in the wrong place: outside the walls of Abu Ghraib, Iraqis already knew. And that knowledge was doing enormous damage to us in Iraq, and as the word began reaching places outside Iraq, the knowledge was doing enormous damage to us in the broader Arab world and elsewhere.

No one can hide torture for long. In the end, Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with their enablers, Bush, Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice, were fools with little understanding of the damage they were doing to the United States. Keep in mind that George W. Bush gave flowery speeches on democracy in Iraq at the same time he already knew what was going on in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

In normal times, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush would have been impeached for violating the laws of the United States. The primary reason they were not impeached were right-wing Republicans in Congress and elsewhere who saw no crime and did their utmost to defend the president and vice president. The same right-wing Republicans are still around and still taken far too seriously by far too many people.

More on Bush, Cheney, Iran and Journalists

We have learned a lot in the last six years about the relationship between government officials, particularly Bush government officials, and journalists. From a different angle, here's another story on Iran with some interesting observations by Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly:

...let's face it: a campaign of "propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions" is just about the mildest possible covert operation you can imagine. Why would anyone at the CIA, let alone multiple sources, be so outraged by it that they decided to leak its existence to ABC News?

Beats me. Maybe I'm not using my imagination enough. But there is an alternative: namely that this wasn't the work of malcontents at all. Rather, it was deliberately leaked as a way of sending a message to Iran, in much the same way that Simon Tisdall's "senior US official in Baghdad" decided that the Guardian might be a good place to plant a similar message. There seems to be a fair amount of that kind of thing going on right now.

Perhaps Cheney and company are behind the spin on the naval exercises story after all. It's still speculation but we are in dangerous times. And the fact remains that the Bush Administration and any number of journalists, anxious to keep their sources so they can keep writing their stories, are not being entirely straight with the American people these days.

Naval Exercises in Persian Gulf

As long as our troops are in Iraq, a greater US naval presence than usual is necessary in the Persian Gulf. The Persian Gulf, besides being the main route for supplying our troops in Iraq, is, after all, our line of eventual withdrawal of at least the majority of our troops at some time in the future (preferably that withdrawal will begin in the next year or two, though no one who has watched the reckless Bush Administration for six years is holding their breath).

While our navy is in the Persian Gulf, they have to be prepared for anything and part of being prepared is holding exercises. That's understood. But how those exercises are portrayed can be a touchy matter. We now have two aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf. That's a strong military presence. There was concern for a time that we might put three aircraft carrier groups in the area; three aircraft carriers might have been a serious signal of impending military action against Iran. Naval exercises with three aircraft carriers would have heightened tensions not just in the Persian Gulf but around the world.

The Huffington Post carries an interesting article on the naval exercises by Barbara Surk of AP; I recommend reading the whole article but here's an excerpt:

Ships packed with 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf on Wednesday as the U.S. Navy staged another show of force off Iran's coast just days before U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad.

The carrier strike groups led by the USS John C. Stennis and USS Nimitz were joined by the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard and its own strike group, which includes two landing ships carrying 2,100 members of the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

(snip)

The war games—which culminate in an amphibious landing exercise in Kuwait, just a few miles from Iran —appear to be a clear warning to Tehran, coming just ahead of the Baghdad talks and as the United Nations contemplates tightening sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

A good reporter gets a story from multiple sources, if possible. Surk mentions the navy and what I assume is an Arab foreign policy expert in Dubai. No mention is made of the White House but I can't help feeling Cheney's fingerprints are on the story. Maybe not. But consider that the USS Bonhomme becomes a third ship after the two aircraft carriers as if it is almost equivalent to an aircraft carrier. We are told there will be amphibious operations and that's fine; that is a part of naval operations and if we think of it as a defensive capability, it's a capability worth showing, if there's a reason to. Except perhaps as a way of creating uncertainty and tying down Iranian troops at defensive locations, an offensive amphibious capability against Iran, however, doesn't make any sense given our troop shortage (and the very long coastline of Iran). Without a draft, those troops are not going to be available any time soon.

Then there's the odd point made in the article about the amphibious landing being made in Kuwait "just a few miles from Iran." Well, Iraq has a wedge of land between Kuwait and Iran and that's where a lot of our shipping goes through. So why the point about "just a few miles from Iran"? I hope I'm wrong but the tone of the article almost seems designed to be mildly provocative. If someone was urging Surk to mention these points, perhaps someone from the White House or some proxy, she has an obligation to say so to the reader. Then again, it's possible I'm just misreading the article. Cheney doesn't have his hands on everything that seems odd—just some things.

Of course, Iran is continuing to misguage the Bush Admistration and I'm surprised that it behaves as if it has some sort of political or military cover if things gets worse. If Bush somehow launches a war against Iran because Iran stumbles and provides an opening that even our navy must respond to, we will have a major war and, despite the modest return of Democrats to Congress, the White House may feel no restraint to limit the damage it could do to Iran. In fact, given the ineffectual policies in Iraq, and given the reckless and authoritarian nature of Bush and Cheney, who always overreact to their own failures, they could get the stupid idea that it's necessary to show a 'real' demonstration of American power, without the considerable restraints that frankly have operated in Iraq (and that were necessary if we were to accomplish what we reportedly claimed to be our goals). The chance of war with Iran have diminished but no one should take anything for granted, not us and not the Iranians.

The Incompetent and Deceptive Mr. Cheney

Vice President Dick Cheney is discovering the hard way that you can't run away from your problems by taking trips overseas that probably should be handled, in any case, by the State Department. Or, at the very minimum, by someone with credibility (63% of Americans no longer trust Bush—or Cheney, for that matter—on intelligence issues).

The jury for the Scooter Libby trial is still deliberating and could conceivably refuse to convict Scooter Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Money can buy favorable legal results in this country. We've seen that many times now in the last fifteen years. There's speculation that Scooter Libby might have won his case during jury selection, with the help of an expensive gimmick used by some lawyers who employ jury experts who know how to get a jury that has good odds of reaching a not guilty verdict, or, at the very least, a hung decision. That's not justice at work. It's good old fashioned money at work. We don't know yet if the gimmick will work or not, but the longer the jury deliberates, the better it is for the defense.

The problem for Dick Cheney is that nobody is fooled: he's a liar, a political manipulator and an incompetent. Dick Cheney used Scooter Libby to out covert CIA operative Valerie Plame and we know it. Washington is not a comfortable place for Dick Cheney these days. Too many of his fiascos are coming out. But his belligerence and arrogance continues as we hear in this story from ABC News:

Pelosi called Cheney's words "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."

But Cheney is holding firm on his original comments.

"I am not sure what part of it that Nancy disagreed with," Cheney told ABC News during an interview today in Sydney, Australia. "She accused me of questioning her patriotism. I didn't question her patriotism, I questioned her judgment."

Cheney said: "The point I made, and I'll make it again, is that al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will. That's their fundamental underlying strategy, that if they can kill enough Americans or cause enough havoc, create enough chaos in Iraq, then we'll quit and go home."

If Dick Cheney knows so much about al Qaida, then where was the Bush Administration in the months before 9/11? Where was Dick Cheney when the outgoing Clinton Administration warned officials of the incoming Bush Administration? Where was Dick Cheney when it was obvious there was no significant al Qaida connection when we invaded Iraq in 2003?

Cheney's blunders and deceptions are endless but let's look again at a critical assertion he made in the quote above and that he has made before and think about it carefully. In the above statement, Cheney says: "...al Qaeda functions on the basis that they think they can break our will." Stop the presses. Think a moment. In late 2001, we had al Qaida on the ropes. It was the United States that was breaking the will of al Qaida. Let's not slip over that point. I'll repeat it again: in late 2001, we had al Qaida on the ropes. It was the United States that was breaking the will of al Qaida.

And then Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld got bored with Afghanistan. It wasn't a big enough war for them. They were obsessed with Iraq and were flummoxed when they couldn't make a credible case for war. So they made something up, inserted those sixteen words, and fixed the evidence around a reckless policy and left the war in Afghanistan behind on the back burner. Five years of blunders, incompetence and arrogance on the part of Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld put us at risk of pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. And Cheney wants to compound the error by starting a war with Iran, or tricking Iran into starting that war, or whatever nonsense he has in mind that he hasn't bothered to tell us. What the Bush Administration should be doing is working on a regional settlement that can only come if we talk with all the neighbors, including Syria and Iran.

Democrats have repeatedly called for finishing the job in Afghanistan. Several Republicans Bush and Cheney have chosen to ignore have also called for properly finishing the job in Afghanistan. Various foreign policy experts have warned that putting al Qaida on the back burner was a serious strategic mistake.

Well, this is where we are: Dick Cheney has no credibililty. George W. Bush has no credibility. You will not gain the needed credibility by attacking your critics who have done little more than point out world class strategic blunders that can not go on unaddressed. Whatever imperial games, or neoconservative games, or oil games that the Bush inner circle has been engaging in for the past few years no longer have any credible chance of reaching a reasonable result that will do most Americans any good. From now on, rebuilding our foreign policy, reestablishing our credibility, repairing our military, winding down in Iraq while we do what we can to stabilize the region with talks and political settlements, and finishing the job in Afghanistan are the only goals the Bush Administration should be pursuing. And it is the obligation of Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to keep the Bush inner circle from dragging us into any further adventures. Bush's presidency is over. And Dick Cheney should do the decent thing and resign.

Bush and Cheney's Foreign Policy: Oops!

According to Sy Hersh's article in the New Yorker (here's a copy in Truthout), it is hard not to draw the conclusion that the Bush Administration is:

1) No longer working hard to create a democracy in Iraq.

2) Somewhat reluctant as things now stand to turn Iraq over to the Shiites, the majority in Iraq. This is largely because of the administration's paranoia about Iran, a Shiite country. It should be noted that the Bush Administration has made no serious effort to engage in real talks with the Iranians, though both sides have been guilty of unhelpful posturing.

3) Funding Sunni organizations in Iraq (and elsewhere for that matter) despite the fact that most American casualties in Iraq were caused by Sunnis, many of them leftovers from the Saddam Hussein regime.

4) Allowing the Saudis to fund Sunni organizations that fund other organizations with ties to al Qaida, the organization that is responsible for the 9/11 attack. Let us remember that the Saudis, although our allies, were never open about how so much funding went to al Qaida in the first place.

5) Hiding money and covert activities from Congress.

6) Insisting they have no intention of going to war with Iran but creating conditions that may make war with Iran more likely.

Oh, one other thing: Bush and Cheney have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Except that it seems to have dawned on them that they're creating a bigger mess in the Middle East and there is the potential of a regional conflict with Shiites and Sunnis, courtesy of the mess that Bush and Cheney have created. Bottom line: the damage they are doing to America's national security is worse than we thought. And in many ways they are working hard to kick the can down the road for the next president rather doing what they need to do to start cleaning up the mess in ways that are meaningful.

We need to get Bush and Cheney out of foreign policy business now rather than two years from now. Congress knows what it has to do and Republicans better start jumping aboard.

Cheney Turns Up the Arrogance

Cakewalk Cheney is trying to change the subject as the jurors continue to deliberate in the Scooter Libby trial (if anyone has doubts about what the issues are, see Why the Libby Trial Matters). Despite working secretly behind the curtain, Cheney's arrogance has been plain for all to see. I still recall on 9/11 when Cheney was challenged on his authority to tell Congress what to do, he said, "We have the helicopters." That's the kind of statement that invokes images of coups and not the kind of statement that respects three co-equal branches of government. There have been periods when Cheney has watched the tone of his statements, but in recent weeks, he clearly has turned up his arrogant rhetoric as the Libby trial got underway and as it becomes increasingly clear what a failure the Bush presidency is.

The International Herald Tribune has a Reuters story on one of Cheney's latest broadsides:

The U.S. vice president, Dick Cheney, expressed concerns Friday about China's military buildup, and he also questioned whether North Korea would follow through on its commitments in a recent nuclear deal.

In a speech in Sydney, Cheney also stressed the importance of U.S. forces' remaining in Iraq to stop "jihadists" gaining a base from which to spread violence across the Middle East.

(snip)

"The notion that free countries can turn our backs on what happens in places like Afghanistan or Iraq or any other possible safe haven for terrorists is an option that we simply cannot indulge," Cheney said in his speech.

I'm dumbfounded that Cheney would complain that some would turn their back on Afghanistan. That's exactly what the Bush Administration did as it turned to Iraq and gave us a war we did not need and let Osama bin Laden slip away while events in Afghanistan started sliding downhill. The inner circle of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld considered Afghanistan too small for their enterprise and put Afghanistan on the back burner to pursue a more ambitious and radical agenda that has done nothing for the United States except damage our country and our position in the world. Anyone who thinks the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth $2 trillion and the deaths that have resulted and the enormous damage done to our reputation and credibility is a fool, but Cheney thinks it was worth it. That's the nature of right wing authoritarians: they are usually the last to admit they were wrong. The reality is that Cheney's priorities are different than mine and different than those of most Americans.

And look at his arrogance towards the Chinese. We are the most powerful nation in the world but there are limits to our power and clearly Cheney and Bush are not doing such a hot job in Iraq. When you don't have much credibility, serious talks with our economic partners, as the Chinese clearly are, would be what's called for if there are issues to clear up. Instead, Cheney's arrogant posturing is not useful and simply reminds everyone of his poor judgment. Here's what James Fallows has to say in The Huffington Post:

What is clear is that the worst-positioned person to scold China about its behavior is the one who just did: Vice President Dick Cheney. In his speech yesterday in Australia, the Vice President helpfully observed that the satellite test, plus the buildup of China's military (with a budget still a tiny fraction of America's) was "not consistent with China's stated goal of a peaceful rise."

Let's assume, for argument, that China intends to convert its growing economic power into military strength. Let's assume that its strategic and territorial ambitions are at odds with America's. Let's assume that it intends to upset the international order in countless ways. Let's assume a lot of other things that I don't think are true.

Even if all those things were true, there could be no less effective spokesman for American concern or for the interests of international order than Cheney. This is the man who has refused to answer to his own public for -- well, for anything. For his insistence that everything has gone just as planned in Iraq. For his claim before the war that "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." For his claim after the war that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes." For his role, as described in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's closing statement, as the central, unindicted malefactor in the Scooter Libby case. Even for shooting his friend in the face. ...

Dick Cheney, the man who is accountable for nothing, is the person who will tell other countries what is "consistent" with a peaceful image in the world?

If you haven't spent a lot of time outside the United States recently, you may not been made aware in a painful, humiliating way of how grievously America's moral standing has suffered because of Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, and the general carnage in Iraq. It's hard in general to get non-Americans to listen to lectures about seemly behavior these days. It's hardest of all when the lectures come from the man who, to the rest of the world, personifies America's squandering of the qualities that made it special.

It's been obvious for some time that the blunders by Bush and Cheney make it impossible for the United States to have much credibility when talking to other nations about any number of issues but particularly human rights. Any number of countries are still violating basic human rights and their answer to Bush or Cheney is very blunt and summed in two words: Abu Ghraib.

Did I mention that the Russians are concerned that we're in an arms race and that Stephen Hadley is having to ease their concerns? The most useful thing Dick Cheney can do for the American people is resign.