Cheney Emerges as Defender-in-Chief for Bush Years, Says He Won't 'Roll Over'

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

If torture was used, you would be correct.

[facepalm]

that is exactly how I feel when responding to you!

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,590]

I have a problem with the whole "terrorist" label in general;

Violent acts are initiated by one of two parties:
a) state-sponsored, uniformed armies.
b) criminals.

The military deals with "a", and the criminal justice system deals with "b".
Al Qaeda is nothing more than loosely-organized crime.

When Dubya declared a "War on Terror", he elevated a bunch of scum-bag criminals to the status of uniformed soldiers.

The whole "terrorist" label needs to go into the trashcan.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[pirana 0]

I would include in any definition of terorism the criteria that the action be taken against civilians. I think it should be no holds barred when armed forces are at each other.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If torture was used, you would be correct.

[facepalm]

that is exactly how I feel when responding to you!

Thanks

Then don't respond to me. Try responding specifically to the "research" follow up questions that Marg asks you. Maybe we'll learn something that you think we've missed. Until then I'm satisfied that you're satisfied with a double standard as evidenced by your "conditional" view of the "complicated" question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If torture was used, you would be correct.

[facepalm]

that is exactly how I feel when responding to you!

Thanks

Then don't respond to me. Try responding specifically to the "research" follow up questions that Marg asks you. Maybe we'll learn something that you think we've missed. Until then I'm satisfied that you're satisfied with a double standard as evidenced by your "conditional" view of the "complicated" question as to whether or not waterboarding is torture.

Exactly where is my double standard?

(this should be good)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

YOU say water boarding is torture.
I say it is a technique that the useful and acceptable.
There are many who agree with either side.

Who is correct?
This one will be debated for years.

YOU and yours say these techniques , whether torture or not, yields no good info.

Many say it does

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517158,00.html


What makes you right and me wrong?

I have my opinion
You have yours.

I accept yours even though I do not agree with you.
YOU refuse to accept mine.

Interesting, don’t you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Exactly where is my double standard?

(this should be good)

From your previous assertion that the status of waterboarding as torture is "conditional" and from this reply earlier in this thread.

Quote

Quote

Is waterboarding torture? Simple question.

Not that simple but, i feel the application applied in our case, no

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Exactly where is my double standard?

(this should be good)

From your previous assertion that the status of waterboarding as torture is "conditional" and from this reply earlier in this thread.

Quote

Quote

Is waterboarding torture? Simple question.

Not that simple but, i feel the application applied in our case, no

the conditional was more of a comment to application and the 4 or 5 known differnt ways to do it.

Nice try though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/five-forms-of-torture.htm

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Nice try though

US Code regarding torture

Even the Bush administration admitted it fit the defintion of the threat of imminent death.

Nice try though.

[grimmie 186]

No one discusses how many prisoners were held in Gitmo for years with no charges. Were we waterboarding a bunch of innocent taxi drivers?

And if waterboarding is no big deal why doesn't Hannity take up Olbermann's challenge? $1,000 per second.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

No one discusses how many prisoners were held in Gitmo for years with no charges. Were we waterboarding a bunch of innocent taxi drivers?

And if waterboarding is no big deal why doesn't Hannity take up Olbermann's challenge? $1,000 per second.

why dont you?

good money

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Then don't respond to me. Try responding specifically to the "research" follow up questions that Marg asks you. Maybe we'll learn something that you think we've missed.

To Marc’s credit, he did follow up and he did send me that link yesterday via PM. His reference was to an April Fox News interview with GEN Hayden that I had already seen.

Unfortunately it’s not new data. He (neither Marc nor GEN Hayden) are not really citing anything new. It’s GEN Hayden repeating what he has said before. (Think I actually referenced the interview ). No new evidence.

Here’s the most concise summary available with references to primary documents and experienced operators, as far as I know, of what was the results of the 3 detainees who were waterboarded, 183 times in one case & 83 times in another. Basically, a mess of confessions to things that that would have had to warp the space time continuum to be true.



OTOH, New evidence was presented yesterday, under oath, by the FBI agent, Ali Soufan, who personally investigated and supervised interrogations and investigations of international terrorists, including the East Africa bombings, the USS Cole bombing, events surrounding the attacks of 9/11, and the initial interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Information obtain by Mr Soufan and another colleague from the FBI *using traditional interrogation methods* led directly to identification of Khalid Sheik Mohamed, other al Qa’eda operatives, other Jamaah Islamayah (JI) operatives, and actionable information that saved lives.

Soufan is it. He’s been there. Done it. Got critical information out of very bad people. He's an operator. He's not a “desk-jockey” or DC-inside-the-Beltway-politician. He’s among the “Arizona Airspeed” of interrogators.

For those who don’t radical Islamist terrorism or defense issues clsoely: Soufan speaks to the detention and interrogation of two specific al Qa’eda terrorists: (1) Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, aka Abu Jandal and (2) Abu Zubaydah.

His testimony starts at ~1:20 – they have to reconfigure the Senate chamber (including removing some cameras) so that he is outside camera view and behind a screen.

What works:

“There are many examples of successful interrogations of terrorists that have taken place before and after 9/11. Many of them are classified, but one that is already public and mirrors the other cases, is the interrogation of al Qaeda terrorist Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, known as Abu Jandal. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, together with my partner Special Agent Robert McFadden, a first-class intelligence operative from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), (which, from my experience, is one of the classiest agencies I encountered in the intelligence community), I interrogated Abu Jandal.

“Through our interrogation, which was done completely by the book (including advising him of his rights), we obtained a treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence. For example, Abu Jandal gave us extensive information on Osama Bin Laden's terror network, structure, leadership, membership, security details, facilities, family, communication methods, travels, training, ammunitions, and weaponry, including a breakdown of what machine guns, rifles, rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles they used. He also provided explicit details of the 9/11 plot operatives, and identified many terrorists who we later successfully apprehended. [that’s specific and actionable intelligence, obtained quickly. It’s also an order of magnitude or two more specific than anything GEN Hayden has stated – nerdgirl]

“The information was important for the preparation of the war in Afghanistan in 2001. It also provided an important background to the 9/11 Commission report; it provided a foundation for the trials so far held in Guantanamo Bay; and it also has been invaluable in helping to capture and identify top al Qaeda operatives and thus disrupt plots.

“The approach used in these successful interrogations can be called the Informed Interrogation Approach. Until the introduction of the ‘enhanced’ technique, it was the sole approach used by our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community.”

Countering the assertions that what some pejoratively dismiss as ‘soft’ techniques, i.e., the Army Field Manual, somehow are limiting:

“The Army Field Manual is not about being nice or soft. It is a knowledge-based approach. It is about outwitting the detainee by using a combination of interpersonal, cognitive, and emotional strategies to get the information needed. If done correctly it's an approach that works quickly and effectively because it outwits the detainee using a method that he is not trained, or able, to resist.”

What doesn’t work:

“This Informed Interrogation Approach is in sharp contrast with the harsh interrogation approach introduced by outside contractors and forced upon CIA officials to use.

“A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example.

“This is why, as we see from the recently released Department of Justice memos on interrogation, the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods, until they reached waterboarding and then there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again. Abu Zubaydah had to be waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times.

“In addition the harsh techniques only serves to reinforce what the detainee has been prepared to expect if captured. This gives him a greater sense of control and predictability about his experience, and strengthens his will to resist.

“A second major problem with this technique is that evidence gained from it is unreliable. There is no way to know whether the detainee is being truthful, or just speaking to either mitigate his discomfort or to deliberately provide false information. As the interrogator isn't an expert on the detainee or the subject matter, nor has he spent time going over the details of the case, the interrogator cannot easily know if the detainee is telling the truth. This unfortunately has happened and we have had problems ranging from agents chasing false leads to the disastrous case of Ibn Sheikh al-Libby who gave false information on Iraq, al Qaeda, and WMD. [i.e., it’s failed before.]

“A third major problem with this technique is that it is slow. It takes place over a long period of time, for example preventing the detainee from sleeping for 180 hours as the memos detail, or waterboarding 183 times in the case of KSM. When we have an alleged "ticking timebomb" scenario and need to get information quickly, we can't afford to wait that long.

“A fourth problem with this technique is that ignores the end game. In our country we have due process, which requires evidence to be collected in a certain way. The CIA, because of the sensitivity of its operations, by necessity, operates secretly. These two factors mean that by putting the CIA in charge of interrogations, either secrecy is sacrificed for justice and the CIA's operations are hampered, or justice is not served. Neither is a desirable outcome.

[Anyone who has been following my postings can see the same arguments made by other operators and myself.

More on why “enhanced interrogation” doesn’t work and is counter-productive:

”In addition, the FBI and the CIA officers on the ground during the Abu Zubaydah interrogation were working together closely and effectively, until the contractors' interferences. Because we in the FBI would not be a part of the harsh techniques, the agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An FBI colleague of mine, for example, who had tracked KSM and knew more about him than anyone in the government, was not allowed to speak to him.

“It is also important to realize that those behind this technique [waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogationmethods’] are outside contractors with no expertise in intelligence operations, investigations, terrorism, or al Qaeda. Nor did the contractors have any experience in the art of interview and interrogation.

Mr. Soulan continued to describe, in some detail, how much information was obtained from Abu Zubaydah initially using traditional interrogation methods: “gave us important actionable intelligence.” And then, once what he calls CIA contractors arrived, there was no useful, actionable intelligence produced.

--- -- -- -- ---

To be explicit: it’s not about the prisoners/detainess. That’s a red herring that some (not all) folks seem to argue against. It’s about doing what is most effective for US interests.

Taken in consideration with the other 3 arguments (reciprocity on US service members, impedance of US foreign policy and national defense goals, and morals/ethics), there is no strategic, operational, or tactical advantage to employing waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture as part of investigatory process. Quite to the contrary, one may argue that such a policy has (strongly) negative strategic, operational, and tactical repercussions.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction."Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

Ronald Reagan
Message to the Senate, MAY 20, 1988

It looks like the party left him in more ways than one.

By nominating John McCain? How, exactly is that "leaving" the principles outlined there?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

No one discusses how many prisoners were held in Gitmo for years with no charges. Were we waterboarding a bunch of innocent taxi drivers?

In some cases, it appears yes. In some cases, no.
Many of the detainees are very, very, very bad men.

From a purely hard-core realist perspective (i.e., ignore normatives of morals, ethics, and "the American way"), the objections to waterboarding, 'enhanced interogation' or other euphemism for torture is that other methods have proven to be more effective. Do what works.


From a purely hard-core realist perspective (i.e., ignore normatives of morals, ethics, and "the American way"), the use of waterboarding, 'enhanced interogation' or other euphemism for torture, and outright torture is

ineffective,

is not needed for a 'ticking time bomb' scenarios, i.e., the fallacy of the Hollywood ”24” scenarios

increases the risk to US uniformed service members and other US civilians deployed abroad,

has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers,

serves as a recruiting tool for al Qa'eda

Quote

And if waterboarding is no big deal why doesn't Hannity take up Olbermann's challenge? $1,000 per second.

Don't have a good answer to that one. One can only speculate.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

And if waterboarding is no big deal why doesn't Hannity take up Olbermann's challenge? $1,000 per second.

Don't have a good answer to that one. One can only speculate.

Personally, I'd submit to waterboarding for $1000 per second. I think it would suck pretty bad while it was happening, but knowing that there's no permanent impairment, I'd take the cash. Heck, at those rates, I'd probably spend a month trying to rack up a score like KSM, and take home the big money.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And if waterboarding is no big deal why doesn't Hannity take up Olbermann's challenge? $1,000 per second.

Don't have a good answer to that one. One can only speculate.

Personally, I'd submit to waterboarding for $1000 per second. I think it would suck pretty bad while it was happening, but knowing that there's no permanent impairment, I'd take the cash. Heck, at those rates, I'd probably spend a month trying to rack up a score like KSM, and take home the big money.

If it was [Amazon] doing the waterboarding in a controlled US facility, I would too (probably).

If I was captured in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan by AQ in Iraq, the Afghani Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, or (Big) al Qa'eda, I would not. Although, as a female, they would probably not consider me valuable/human and just set me on fire.

Those are 2 very different scenarios.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

By nominating John McCain? How, exactly is that "leaving" the principles outlined there?

You lost me.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

By nominating John McCain? How, exactly is that "leaving" the principles outlined there?

You lost me.

I apologize if I've misunderstood your post, but it seemed like you were saying that the Republican party had moved from the (explicitly anti-torture, and implicitly anti-waterboarding) position that you would suppose Reagan to have.

I'm saying that the party's nomination of John McCain (perhaps the highest profile opponent of enhanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration) as their standard bearer in the last presidential election is some evidence that the Republican party, as a whole, does not support those techniques.

It's radically incorrect to assume that because former VP Cheney (who never had to face the party rank and file in a primary) is in favor of something, that would make the entire party in favor of it. Especially when there is such strong evidence (the party's selection of a leading opponent of those techniques as their standard bearer) to the contrary.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[idrankwhat 0]

Thanks (again, as we can always count on you) for the concise position on the lack of effectiveness using "enhanced interrogation techniques". But one of the problems that I have with the torture proponents is their argument that it does produce actionable intelligence and therefore, these techniques are ok to employ. My position is that waterboarding is torture regardless of whether or not it produces any good intel.
(It's like saying "Yea, I stole that guys car, I mean, I "reallocated" it, but I got a great deal. Surely you can't disagree that I saved a lot of money)
The fact that it is ineffective and counterproductive is simply reinforcement of that argument.

[grimmie 186]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And if waterboarding is no big deal why doesn't Hannity take up Olbermann's challenge? $1,000 per second.

Don't have a good answer to that one. One can only speculate.

Personally, I'd submit to waterboarding for $1000 per second. I think it would suck pretty bad while it was happening, but knowing that there's no permanent impairment, I'd take the cash. Heck, at those rates, I'd probably spend a month trying to rack up a score like KSM, and take home the big money.

The grand was for charity.
Can we get Myles Daisher to do your waterboarding? I'd make a fortune on the "gate" to that.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I apologize if I've misunderstood your post, but it seemed like you were saying that the Republican party had moved from the (explicitly anti-torture, and implicitly anti-waterboarding) position that you would suppose Reagan to have.

I'm saying that the party's nomination of John McCain (perhaps the highest profile opponent of enhanced interrogation techniques during the Bush administration) as their standard bearer in the last presidential election is some evidence that the Republican party, as a whole, does not support those techniques.

It's radically incorrect to assume that because former VP Cheney (who never had to face the party rank and file in a primary) is in favor of something, that would make the entire party in favor of it. Especially when there is such strong evidence (the party's selection of a leading opponent of those techniques as their standard bearer) to the contrary.

I was replying to what I perceived as the recent trend by many on the right to posture themselves as Reaganites these days. You hear it from folks like Hannity all of the time. And many of those same people spend a lot of energy defending Bush era actions. They ignored the fiscal irresponsibility of their reign, the trend towards a larger/more intrusive government and embraced nation building. Now they seem to want to cherry pick the Reagan legacy in an effort to define a direction for the party.
What I posted was a quote from Reagan which dealt with our joining the UN Convention against torture. I did so in an effort to point out that the current argument in favor of torture is yet one more plank that the current Republican party is ripping up from the Reagan platform.

But you make a valid observation and I agree that the the rantings of a few does not define the party. The choice of McCain might be interpreted as a rebuke to the neo-con legacy. Then again, McCain may have simply appeared as the best chance for retaining power. I think it was likely both. I honestly do wish the Republican party well in its rebuilding phase. I agree with a lot of what it used to stand for. As in most arguments, the real solution is somewhere in the middle which means "compromise". Binary (with us or against us) thinkers are bad for the country.

[idrankwhat 0]

To get things back on the thread's track, here's a relevant opinion piece.
Dowd's firing on all cylinders in this one


May 13, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Rogue Diva of Doom

By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

When Bush 41 was ramping up to the Gulf War, assembling a coalition to fight Saddam, Jimmy Carter sent a letter to members of the U.N. Security Council urging them not to rush into conflict without further exploring a negotiated solution.

The first President Bush and other Republicans in Washington considered this treasonous, a former president trying to thwart a sitting one, lobbying foreign diplomats to oppose his own country on a war resolution. In 2002, when Bush Junior was ramping up to his war against Saddam, Al Gore made a speech trying to slow down that war resolution, pointing out that pivoting from Osama to Saddam for no reason, initiating “pre-emptive” war, and blowing off our allies would undermine the war on terror.

Charles Krauthammer called Gore’s speech “a disgrace.” Michael Kelly, his fellow Washington Post columnist, called it “vile” and “contemptible.” Newt Gingrich said that the former vice president asserting that W. was making America less safe was “well outside the mark of an appropriate debate.”

“I think the president should be doing what he thinks is best as commander in chief,” Gingrich said flatly. Now, however, Gingrich backs Dick Cheney when he asserts that President Obama has made America less safe.

Asked by Bob Schieffer on Sunday how America could torture when it made a mockery of our ideals, Cheney blithely gave an answer that surely would have been labeled treasonous by Rush Limbaugh, if a Democratic ex-vice president had said it about a Republican president.

“Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said.

Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva. Just as Jeb Bush and other Republicans are trying to get kinder and gentler, Cheney has popped out of his dungeon, scary organ music blaring, to carry on his nasty campaign of fear and loathing.

The man who never talked is now the man who won’t shut up. The man who wouldn’t list his office in the federal jobs directory, who had the vice president’s residence blocked on Google Earth, who went to the Supreme Court to keep from revealing which energy executives helped him write the nation’s energy policy, is now endlessly yelping about how President Obama is holding back documents that should be made public.

Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.

“Bush 41 cares about decorum and protocol,” said an official in Bush I. “I’m sure he doesn’t appreciate Cheney acting out. He is giving the whole party a black eye just as Jeb is out there trying to renew the party.”

Cheney unleashed, egged on by the combative Lynne and Liz, is pretty much the same as Cheney underground: He’s batty, and he thinks he was the president.

W. admired Cheney’s brass (he used another word) but grew increasingly skeptical of him, the more he learned about foreign policy himself, and the more he got pulled into a diplomatic mode by Condi in the second term. There were even reports of W. doing a funny Cheney imitation and that it dawned on him that Cheney and Rummy represented a scofflaw, paranoid Nixon cell within his White House.

“Toward the end, 43 was just as confused as anybody about what makes Cheney tick,” said a Bush family loyalist.

Cheney’s numskull ideas — he still loves torture (dubbed “13th-century” stuff by Bob Woodward), Gitmo and scaring the bejesus out of Americans — are not only fixed, they’re jejune.

He has no coherent foreign policy viewpoint. He still doesn’t fathom that his brutish invasion of Iraq unbalanced that part of the world, empowered Iran and was a force multiplier for Muslims who hate America. He left our ports unsecured, our food supply unsafe, the Taliban rising and Osama on the loose. No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable.

W.’s dark surrogate father is trying to pull the G.O.P. into a black hole of zealotry, just as the sensible brother who lost his future to the scamp brother is trying to get his career back on track.

When Cheney was in the first Bush administration, he was odd man out. Poppy, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell corralled Cheney’s “Genghis Khan” side, as it was known, and his “rough streak.” Cheney didn’t care for Powell even then.

But with W., “Back Seat” — Cheney’s Secret Service name in the Ford administration — clambered up front. Then he totaled the car. And no amount of yapping on TV is going to change that when history is written.

[FallingOsh 0]

That's a pretty large load of name-calling, one-sided, egotistical bullshit.

The majority of Cheney's comments are in defense of Obama's attempts to embarass and prosecute the Bush administration. The reason he's "yelping about documents being held back" is because other documents supposedly only discussing one side have already been released. Uselessly comparing him to Palin and calling him an old insane man is just another attempt to discredit the questioners of the almighty Obama administration.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

That's a pretty large load of name-calling, one-sided, egotistical bullshit.

The majority of Cheney's comments are in defense of Obama's attempts to embarass and prosecute the Bush administration. The reason he's "yelping about documents being held back" is because other documents supposedly only discussing one side have already been released. Uselessly comparing him to Palin and calling him an old insane man is just another attempt to discredit the questioners of the almighty Obama administration.

And that differs from FOX "news" how?
It's an editorial from someone with a propensity for that sort of flare. It's not meant to be a news piece. But calling Dowd "egotistical" when talking about Cheney? She's simply fighting fire with fire.

Cheney means well, he honestly thinks he lived in an all powerful netherworld that was neither executive or legislative. He also thinks that his heavy handed tactics are justified and legal. But he and imperialist ego are wrong. Our Constitution doesn't work that way and we are supposed to set an example by adhering to our laws and our treaties.

And this has nothing to do with the Obama administration other than that it is happening on his watch. The Republican led Congress was supposed to hold the Bush admin accountable. Cheney should have been removed after the details of his involvement in the Iraq war pitch. Rove and Gonzalez should have been thrown in jail for tampering with the Justice Dept and for Rove's contempt of Congress. When the Dems took over Congress they started moves in those directions but they put no teeth in their cries for accountability because they had their eyes on the next election.

Cheney needs to back off. He'll probably receive not so much as a slap on the wrist if he does. As much as I'd like to personally see him thrown in Gitmo for his crimes, I don't think that would be the best thing for our country. It's like the release of the torture pictures. It's the right thing to do but ultimately it would cause more problems than it solves.