Fact Checking

Before I get to posts about Sotomayor, I noticed (thanks to Mr. Furious) that McClatchy did a fact-check on Cheney's lines of bullshit in his speech last week against the Obama Administration's national security efforts.

Tangentally, it was being billed as a squaring-off. In reality, the Obama Administration could have given less of a flying fuck if Cheney spoke that day or not. This was being billed as a debate, which it wasn't. What it was was an embarrassing display of an Ex-Veep grousing about a new administration's policies.
And, it turns out, casting half-truths and lies. Color me shocked.

First, McClatchy,point-counterpoint style (click the link for all of it; I am just picking some of my personal favorites):

He [Cheney] quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information [gained from waterboarding, etc.] gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

— Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.

However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."

— Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."

However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.

— Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.

The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates .

"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo ."

Now if only the MSM would pick-up on McClatchy's piece and shred Cheney's bullshit line for line as well, maybe he would finally crawl back under his rock.

But again, I am not going to act all surprised that he distorted the truth to make a case to a shrinking room of true believers.

What really surprised me about his speech is what it insinuates (again, H/T Mr. Furious, who credits Publius):

There was one part of Cheney’s speech that disturbed me though. From listening to Cheney (and others), you get the sense that they are now rooting for another terrorist attack.

In that respect, Cheney’s speech was more than a retroactive defense of past criminal acts. He was looking ahead. He was setting up the political chessboard to attack Obama and the Democrats in a particularly poisonous way if – God forbid – we are attacked again.

It's a quick read, and well worth it. The overall point is that blowback from Bush Administration torture and war policies will take a while to be achieved. It won't happen right away, but very well could happen under Obama's presidency, and Cheney will be the first in-line to use it as a hammer to say "I told you so."

Nobody wants that to happen, especially an administration trying hard to clean-up messes. But with as violently as Cheney is denouncing Obama's new takes on Bush-era policies, you gotta wonder if Publius is on to something. It's not that they are trying to make a terrorist attack happen. It's that they expect it, and are eagerly awaiting it, rather than letting Obama make his own way. Why else be so vocal if you don't otherwise mean to set the stage?