Dick "War Criminal" Cheney belongs in jail. MSM should call out his tired, debunked fear mongering.

[ProSense]

Cheney Asserts Obama Has Raised Security Risks

By A.G. SULZBERGER
Published: March 15, 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday again asserted that President Obama has made the country less safe, arguing that the new administration’s changes to detention and interrogation programs for suspected terrorists would hamper intelligence gathering.

Mr. Cheney said these moves suggested that terrorism is now being treated as a law enforcement problem.

“He is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack,” Mr. Cheney, who was interviewed on CNN’s "State of the Union,” said about Mr. Obama.

Since taking office, President Obama has reversed many of the policies championed by Mr. Cheney during his eight years serving with George W. Bush. Mr. Obama has announced that the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba will close within the year, suspended military trials for suspected terrorists and prohibited the interrogation practice known as waterboarding.

But on Sunday Mr. Cheney contended those very methods had produced intelligence — still classified — that helped uncover specific plots.

“I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11,” Mr. Cheney said of Bush administration policies, echoing statements he had made in an interview last month with Web site Politico. “I think that’s a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.”

Mr. Cheney said that the Bush administration had decided after the 2001 attacks to make the distinction that combating terrorism was a function of the military rather than law enforcement.

more

Same tired debunked BS!

No, the president does not have a pre-9/11 mind-set"

The president defined "success" in Iraq Wednesday as "a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives." At today's White House press briefing, reporters asked Tony Snow to go a little further and describe an "acceptable" level of violence in Iraq. That's where the fun began:

Snow: You know, I think what you've managed to do is to try to -- we're now playing the adjective game. The fact is when you talk about an acceptable level, it is something that allows the government to exist independently. The problem is, everybody says, "Oh, so you accept violence. You like -- violence is OK." No, it's not OK. And so in abstract terms, zero violence is acceptable.

On the other hand, we know and the president has said many times that it is going to be a tactic of people who want to bring this government down to commit acts of violence. And violence, unfortunately, at least for a while, is going to be a fact of Iraqi life. What we're really talking about is trying to create conditions of security so that you can have a functional democracy in Iraq where people can go about their daily lives, where they have confidence in the rule of law and the people who are responsible for protecting them, that you have a legislative system that is protecting rights and at the same time getting on with the business -- economic reconstruction and so on. So that's really what we're talking about. What you're trying to do is to address the kinds of violence that are designed to destroy Iraq; for instance, al-Qaida recent attacks that are designed not only to create a lot of bloodshed and to weaken the government but also to reignite sectarian violence ... And so those are the issues, those that jeopardize the very existence of the government. Those are the things that we want to address.

Reporter: Minimize violence to a nuisance?

Snow: What you want to do is to be able to have the government in a position where it can stand by itself. And I think trying to get into definitional matters at this point is ...

Reporter: In October of 2004 John Kerry said, "We have to get to the place where we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The president said he couldn't disagree more. Cheney called this naive and dangerous, and part of the pre-9/11 mind-set. So does the president now have a pre-9/11 mind-set?

Snow: No, the president does not have a pre-9/11 mind-set. And the fact is -- I'll have to go back and take a look, but my recollection is that there was an attempt to, kind of, minimize some of the security challenges. But I don't want to put words in Senator Kerry's mouth without looking back at the 2004 debate. It is important to realize that you're going to have to use military force, and especially in conjunction with the Iraqis, to address violence that comes from a whole series of factors, whether they be old members of the Baath Party, whether they be Iraqi rejectionists or whether they be foreign fighters coming in and trying to destroy the government.

Think Progress video: Tony Snow challenged on Bush hypocrisy.

Senator Kerry, NYT 2004 article:

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

This analogy struck me as remarkable, if only because it seemed to throw down a big orange marker between Kerry's philosophy and the president's. Kerry, a former prosecutor, was suggesting that the war, if one could call it that, was, if not winnable, then at least controllable. If mobsters could be chased into the back rooms of seedy clubs, then so, too, could terrorists be sent scurrying for their lives into remote caves where they wouldn't harm us. Bush had continually cast himself as the optimist in the race, asserting that he alone saw the liberating potential of American might, and yet his dark vision of unending war suddenly seemed far less hopeful than Kerry's notion that all of this horror -- planes flying into buildings, anxiety about suicide bombers and chemicals in the subway -- could somehow be made to recede until it was barely in our thoughts.

Kerry came to his worldview over the course of a Senate career that has been, by any legislative standard, a quiet affair. Beginning in the late 80's, Kerry's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations investigated and exposed connections between Latin American drug dealers and BCCI, the international bank that was helping to launder drug money. That led to more investigations of arms dealers, money laundering and terrorist financing.

Kerry turned his work on the committee into a book on global crime, titled ''The New War,'' published in 1997. He readily admitted to me that the book ''wasn't exclusively on Al Qaeda''; in fact, it barely mentioned the rise of Islamic extremism. But when I spoke to Kerry in August, he said that many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.

''Of all the records in the Senate, if you don't mind my saying, I think I was ahead of the curve on this entire dark side of globalization,'' he said. ''I think that the Senate committee report on contras, narcotics and drugs, et cetera, is a seminal report. People have based research papers on it. People have based documents on it, movies on it. I think it was a significant piece of work.''

More senior members of the foreign-relations committee, like Joe Biden and Richard Lugar, were far more visible and vocal on the emerging threat of Islamic terrorism. But through his BCCI investigation, Kerry did discover that a wide array of international criminals -- Latin American drug lords, Palestinian terrorists, arms dealers -- had one thing in common: they were able to move money around through the same illicit channels. And he worked hard, and with little credit, to shut those channels down.

In 1988, Kerry successfully proposed an amendment that forced the Treasury Department to negotiate so-called Kerry Agreements with foreign countries. Under these agreements, foreign governments had to promise to keep a close watch on their banks for potential money laundering or they risked losing their access to U.S. markets. Other measures Kerry tried to pass throughout the 90's, virtually all of them blocked by Republican senators on the banking committee, would end up, in the wake of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act; among other things, these measures subject banks to fines or loss of license if they don't take steps to verify the identities of their customers and to avoid being used for money laundering.

Through his immersion in the global underground, Kerry made connections among disparate criminal and terrorist groups that few other senators interested in foreign policy were making in the 90's. Richard A. Clarke, who coordinated security and counterterrorism policy for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, credits Kerry with having seen beyond the national-security tableau on which most of his colleagues were focused. ''He was getting it at the same time that people like Tony Lake were getting it, in the '93 -'94 time frame,'' Clarke says, referring to Anthony Lake, Clinton's national security adviser. ''And the 'it' here was that there was a new nonstate-actor threat, and that nonstate-actor threat was a blended threat that didn't fit neatly into the box of organized criminal, or neatly into the box of terrorism. What you found were groups that were all of the above.''

In other words, Kerry was among the first policy makers in Washington to begin mapping out a strategy to combat an entirely new kind of enemy. Americans were conditioned, by two world wars and a long standoff with a rival superpower, to see foreign policy as a mix of cooperation and tension between civilized states. Kerry came to believe, however, that Americans were in greater danger from the more shadowy groups he had been investigating -- nonstate actors, armed with cellphones and laptops -- who might detonate suitcase bombs or release lethal chemicals into the subway just to make a point. They lived in remote regions and exploited weak governments. Their goal wasn't to govern states but to destabilize them.

The challenge of beating back these nonstate actors -- not just Islamic terrorists but all kinds of rogue forces -- is what Kerry meant by ''the dark side of globalization.'' He came closest to articulating this as an actual foreign-policy vision in a speech he gave at U.C.L.A. last February. ''The war on terror is not a clash of civilizations,'' he said then. ''It is a clash of civilization against chaos, of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.''

This stands in significant contrast to the Bush doctrine, which holds that the war on terror, if not exactly a clash of civilizations, is nonetheless a struggle between those states that would promote terrorism and those that would exterminate it. Bush, like Kerry, accepts the premise that America is endangered mainly by a new kind of adversary that claims no state or political entity as its own. But he does not accept the idea that those adversaries can ultimately survive and operate independently of states; in fact, he asserts that terrorist groups are inevitably the subsidiaries of irresponsible regimes. ''We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients,'' the National Security Strategy said, in a typical passage, ''before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.''

By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran -- as an ''axis of evil,'' and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can -- and should -- be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders.

Kerry's view, on the other hand, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails.

One can infer from this that if Kerry were able to speak less guardedly, in a less treacherous atmosphere than a political campaign, he might say, as some of his advisers do, that we are not in an actual war on terror. Wars are fought between states or between factions vying for control of a state; Al Qaeda and its many offspring are neither. If Kerry's foreign-policy frame is correct, then law enforcement probably is the most important, though not the only, strategy you can employ against such forces, who need passports and bank accounts and weapons in order to survive and flourish. Such a theory suggests that, in our grief and fury, we have overrated the military threat posed by Al Qaeda, paradoxically elevating what was essentially a criminal enterprise, albeit a devastatingly sophisticated and global one, into the ideological successor to Hitler and Stalin -- and thus conferring on the jihadists a kind of stature that might actually work in their favor, enabling them to attract more donations and more recruits.

Law enforcement at work:

Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief (as paraphrased by the New York Times Magazine of Oct. 10, 2004) that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:

"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, God-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. (Democrats) do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."

link

How one tip destroyed huge air-terror plot

By Craig Whitlock and Dafna Linzer

It all began with a tip: After the July 7, 2005, subway bombings in London, British authorities received a call from a member of the Muslim community, reporting general suspicions about an acquaintance.

From that vague piece of information, according to a senior European intelligence official, British authorities opened the investigation into what they said turned out to be a well-coordinated, long-planned plot to use liquid explosives to bomb multiple U.S.-bound trans-Atlantic flights, an assault designed to rival the scope and lethality of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

By late 2005, the probe involved several hundred investigators on three continents who kept dozens of suspects under close surveillance, even as some suspects traveled between Britain and Pakistan to raise money, find recruits and refine their scheme, according to interviews with U.S. and European officials.

Investigators eventually pieced together enough information from a blizzard of stakeouts, tips and wiretaps to make clear that something big was in the works, and that the plotters' preparations were nearing an end.

"It's not like three weeks ago all of a sudden MI5 knew about this plot and went to work," a U.S. law-enforcement official said, speaking of the British security service. "They'd had a concern about these guys for some time, for months. Details started to emerge, and it became clear over the last couple weeks the nature of the threat and the individuals."

Reporting on terror arrests in Britain, numerous media outlets ask: Will the news help Bush?

Will the media cover for Cheney the liar and war criminal? It's time to put to rest the spin that the Repubs understand how to protect Americans after they ignored the biggest clue ever:

[ProSense]

1. How hard would it have been to

call out this lying criminal? At least throw some fact at him.

[pansypoo53219]

2. no shit.

they are enabling the rite.

[ProSense]

3. They're coddling a

war criminal

[Politicalboi]

4. I guess

The Dick needs to go on The Daily Show in order to get some real questions thrown at him. And maybe a few shoes too.

[obiwan]

5. He can still be my lawn jockey.

[L. Coyote]

6. MSM is state/corporate propaganda, and Cheney still runs it, as plainly evidenced.