We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit, and the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists.

These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass a 9/11 with nuclear weapons.

For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.

There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I've heard occasional speculation that I'm a different man after 9/11. I wouldn't say that. But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.

To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.

The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn't invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.

Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. The program was top secret, and for good reason, until the editors of the New York Times got it and put it on the front page. After 9/11, the Times had spent months publishing the pictures and the stories of everyone killed by al-Qaeda on 9/11. Now here was that same newspaper publishing secrets in a way that could only help al-Qaeda. It impressed the Pulitzer committee, but it damn sure didn't serve the interests of our country, or the safety of our people.

In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be gained only through tough interrogations.

bwhahahaha that worthless Mother effer Dick Cheney. He is a piece of shit on a snails ass.

Larry

In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.

Our successors in office have their own views on all of these matters.

By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet 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.

There is more and this is a great speech--takes us back to what this is all about.

One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel. But now that this once top-secret information is out for all to see including the enemy let me draw your attention to some points that are routinely overlooked.

It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn't think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

Maybe you've heard that when we captured KSM, he said he would talk as soon as he got to New York City and saw his lawyer. But like many critics of interrogations, he clearly misunderstood the business at hand. American personnel were not there to commence an elaborate legal proceeding, but to extract information from him before al-Qaeda could strike again and kill more of our people.

In public discussion of these matters, there has been a strange and sometimes willful attempt to conflate what happened at Abu Ghraib prison with the top secret program of enhanced interrogations. At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulations, and simple decency. For the harm they did, to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice. And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Text of Obama's speech today:

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. 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.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about "values." Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe.

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. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States. Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned one lead that goes unpursued can bring on catastrophe it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.

So right and so sobering and with details Cheney gets this issue right.

Before delivering his speech today, Cheney began by ad-libbing: "It's pretty clear the president served in the Senate and not in the House, because in the House, we have the five-minute rule." This prompted me to flip through the advance copy handed out of Cheney's remarks and to note that it went on for 16 pages.

So right and so sobering and with details Cheney gets this issue right.

Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-21 08:10 PM | Reply

bwhahahahahaha i can't believe Your shit Murphy. You believe and trust in a War Criminal?? I may be a sick fuck I don't believe in supporting a War Criminal. Murphy please please Please wake up and smell the coffee. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

Larry

There is more and this is a great speech--takes us back to what this is all about.

#6 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-21 08:07 PM

Okay, then maybe I'll take the time to read it.

"Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy."

Right on!

Thanks for posting Murphy!

And without a doubt the libs will attack Cheney instead of addressing the substance of what he is saying.

And what is very telling is that Cheney's speech was planned two weeks ago.

Obama --not to upstaged for the newsday chose this very same day to give his speech 5 days ago.

Some analysis of Cheney's speech:

One interesting aspect is Cheney's schizophrenic attitude toward America's image management, something he shares with a lot of conservatives. After praising President Obama's "wise decision" in "reversing his plan to release incendiary photos" of Iraqis being abused by U.S. soldiers, Cheney went on dismiss "the notion that American interrogation practices were a recruitment tool' for the enemy," calling it "another version of that same old refrain from the Left, We brought it on ourselves.'"

Cheney is arguing against Gen. Petraeus, Sen. John McCain, and military interrogators who have acknowledged that abusive interrogation practices have incited hatred against the U.S. and served as a recruiting tool for our enemies. Cheney implicitly admits as much with his comments about the "incendiary photos" if bad publicity has nothing to do with national security, what's the problem? Why should we care who they incite?

As for the notion that criticizing national security policies as counterproductive is the same as saying "We brought it on ourselves," well, Dick contradicts himself here, too, as he is quite happy to cast blame on the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism policies for an attack that happened on the Bush administration's watch. Why can't Dick Cheney stop blaming America?

Cheney is trying His level best to salvage His completely trashed legacy and justify War Crimes and Authorizing Illegal tortures upon the Detainees. It's bullshit Murphy.

Larry

Laurence O'Donnell's response to Cheney's speech:

"Cheney's speech is an insult to one's intelligence"

"Obama --not to upstaged for the newsday chose this very same day to give his speech 5 days ago.

#16 | Posted by MURPHY "

Murphy you blithering idiot,

If anything Obama increased the attention paid to Cheney's speech. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was deliberate. Making this Strangelovian character Cheney the face of the Republican party is bad news...for you. Hahahaha...

And without a doubt the libs will attack Cheney instead of addressing the substance of what he is saying.

#15 | Posted by MURPHY

His actions speak louder than his words.

"And it wouldn't surprise me if it was deliberate. Making this Strangelovian character Cheney the face of the Republican party is bad news...for you. "

Null,

Murphy has gone all Ayn Randian on us:

So much for the rule of law--that is out the window.

Tyranny abounds and liberty stolen.

This is like Ayn Rands' personal story of how her family's drug store was taken away by the gov't and given to some pol.

We are Atlas Shrugged.

Now we gotta go Galt.

Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-21 07:57 PM | Reply

Oh, I see you already noticed that:

#64 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-05-21 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag: We don't know what in the fuck we are talking about

Posted by nullifidian at 2009-05-21 08:32 PM | Reply

LOL

Thanks Gal--Null just hates Atlas Shrugged..

Have you read it?

We are living it in so many ways--it's uncanny.

Murphy,

Yeah, I figured your Rand comment was red meat for Null. I tried to read her years ago but never finished the book.

"Thanks Gal--Null just hates Atlas Shrugged.."

Actually I like it, Murphy. She's not mealy-mouthed like most conservatives; she hates the working class and worships the wealthy and isn't afraid to admit it.

Cheney believes that if he only remains on the scene long enough a terrorist attack will occur somewhere and allow him to say "I told you so."
That is his true motivation. He wants more Americans to agree with him that violating American law by doing waterboarding is justified when a Vice President says it is. He expands upon the Nixon doctrine that "when a President does it then it is legal" to the Vice Presidency. I'd say he takes the Unitary Executive to the most extreme in that it ceases to be unitary and becomes binitary(?)

"Text of Cheney's AEI Speech"

Why, yes, it's just over there, in those shelves marked "Science Fiction."

Why, yes, it's just over there, in those shelves marked "Science Fiction." - Doc

Doc, there is no science in it, so don't insult science fiction. "Fantasy" shelves might be the spot. Next to the books by Ayn Rand. And the books about goblins and werewolves.

Up 8 points!

Is it any wonder Cheney has become the only member of a failed administration to keep publicly flying the flag? In office he was a ghost, only speaking in confined quarters, off-limits to reporters. Now he is doing the rubber-chicken(hawk) dance like he is on a marquee off Broadway.

"two shows a day and a Sunday matinee"

I think the neo-cons choosing Cheney as the short-term spokesman was brilliant, really. When you have an approval rating worse than Chancellor Palpatine, there is nowhere to go but up!