This is my response to Cheney's speech from 5/21/2009

Lies, upon lies, upon lies.

Lie #1:
Cheney: "Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis."

The facts:
Beginning on Aug. 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office.

In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

The Clinton administration ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six hours of receiving the order.

Three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission.

The CIA's directorate of operations recruited, trained, paid or equipped surrogate forces in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and among tribal militias inside Afghanistan, with the common purpose of capturing or killing bin Laden. The Pakistani channel, disclosed previously in The Washington Post, and its Uzbek counterpart, which has not been reported before, never bore fruit. Inside Afghanistan, tribal allies twice reported to their CIA handlers that they fought skirmishes with bin Laden's forces, but they inflicted no verified damage.

Operatives of the CIA's Special Activities Division made at least one clandestine entry into Afghanistan in 1999. They prepared a desert airstrip to extract bin Laden, if captured, or to evacuate U.S. tribal allies, if cornered. The Special Collection Service, a joint project of the CIA and the National Security Agency, also slipped into Afghanistan to place listening devices within range of al Qaeda's tactical radios.

In August 1998, just after the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings, the Clinton administration responded with Tomahawk missile strikes against alleged bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan, and a pharmaceutical plant outside Khartoum.According to a State Department official, after a December 1996 report showed heavy security around the plant…

"We had previously collected samples from other suspected sites in Sudan," the official said, "but only the sample from the Shifa facility tested positively for chemical weapons precursors. We know of no other factors in the environment that could result in a positive EMPTA signature."

(EMPTA O-Ethyl Methylphosphonothioic Acid (VX Nerve Gas precursor))

Not only did the Republicans accuse Clinton of exaggerating the threat, it was they that not only failed to act at all against Al Queda in the first 9 months of the Bush presidency, but they gave the Taliban MILLIONS OF DOLLARS even after they destroyed historically priceless ancient world artifacts. You see, they actually saw eye to eye with the radical theocracy that was overtly protecting Bin Laden with it's sovereignty.

Lie #2:
"We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy - leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor."

He is technically correct, in that 2,402 people died in the attack against Pearl Harbor. The lie is in the mischaracterization of the comparison. You see, the reason Pearl Harbor completed the US's entry into World War 2 (everyone should know this, but it's amazing how I've never heard any of the shill talking heads mention this) is that Japan had substantially hurt the US's ability to DEFEND IT'S WEST COAST AGAINST INVASION! People realized that if Japan had taken the time to set up supply lines and mount a sustained attack, instead of what ended up being a comakaze attack that was not sustainable, then our national security would TRULY be threatened.THERE IS NO COMPARISON! Though 9/11 was undoubtedly a deplorable act, we have NOT BEEN IN DANGER OF INVASION. Our sovereignty has never been at stake! This mischaracteration of our state of national security is nothing but a cowardly lie by those we put in a position of ultimate trust, in order to push their political agenda.

Lie #3:
"Everyone expected a follow-on attack."

The only reason anyone would have to realistically fear another attack is the rhetorical paranoid fear mongering, likely brought on by guilty consciences and political opportunism of the Bush administration. Don't get me wrong, ANYONE who is attacked by surprise will jump at shadows immediately after, however reasonable people see this for what it is and overcome such feelings with reason. There was not one bit of intelligence ANYWHERE, either before or immediately after that suggested that another attack was coming. On the other hand, there was substantial intelligence pointing to the attacks that DID take place.The truth of the matter is (as documented by even the whitewashed 9/11 comission), it was not the intelligence agencies that failed to see danger and report it. It was the executive branch that failed to compile and act upon the data... or act at all in a concerted way against terrorism for the previous 9 months. There are good reasons that domestic and foreign intelligence are separated. It is the Executive branch's JOB to take the information and act upon it. To this day there has been NO public evidence of a credible threat even as serious as 9/11, which as I've already made clear, was no Pearl Harbor. This is not to say that terrorism is not a substantial threat, but especially since Cheney insists on being so militant, let's talk of this in straight military terms: Terrorism is, was, and probably always be a threat of collateral damage. It is NOT a credible threat of invasion. Now, I can hear the empty rhetoric bubbling up now: Would you subject yourself and your love ones to a reasonable risk of unforeseen collateral damage in order to preserve our principles of Freedom as espoused in the United States Constitution? And I would reply, (as any American rightfully should) with a resounding YES! As a matter of fact, coming from a family with a rich military tradition (5 members of my immediate family (out of a total of 7) served in the military during various wars, including WW2) many of them already have been more at risk than the majority of these chicken hawks, especially 5 times deferred Cheney.

Lie #4:
This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market.

The first part is factually correct. Of course they were 'seeking' nuclear technology (lots of evil men desire such things, but when it comes to nuclear threats, Al Qaeda at the height of it's power DID NOT COMPARE to Musharraf's Pakistan (who HAS nuclear capabilities) not to mention Korea and China), but again, there has been no credible reason to believe they ever came ANYWHERE NEAR the slightest bit of fissionable materials. In fact, the IAEA said that there have been about 375 cases of nuclear smuggling over the past decade, but none have involved anything close to enough fissionable material to construct a nuclear weapon. (and never mind the HUGE issue of DELIVERING the mythical weapon) This is where the cowardly lies get really thick. If they TRULY believed that this was a threat, WHY DID THEY MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SUBSTANTIAL MOVES TO SECURE OUR PORTS? Yet he uses this as justification for violating the constitution and US law. As for Khan selling nuclear technology 'on the black market', things get scary funny. (not funny ha-ha)

Fact #1:
"Nuclear technology" is not a small undertaking. The thought of Al Qaeda setting up centrifuges and other required elements to construct a nuclear weapon is completely LUDICROUS. This is how much credit Cheney gives even his supporters, and yet they still lap it up. I mean this is just idiotic in the extreme.

Fact #2:
In September 2005, Musharraf revealed that after two years of questioning Khan — which the Pakistani government insisted to do itself without outside intervention — that they had confirmed that Khan had supplied centrifuge parts to North Korea. WE ONLY HAD Musharraf's WORD that Khan was responsible for attempting to trade Pakistan's nuclear technology to Korea.

Fact #3:
Since 2005, and particularly in 2006, there have been renewed calls by IAEA officials, senior U.S. congressmen, EC politicians, and others to make Khan available for interrogation by IAEA investigators, given lingering skepticism about the "fullness" of the disclosures made by Pakistan regarding Khan's activities. In the U.S., these calls have been made by elected U.S. lawmakers rather than by the U.S. Department of State. You see, the Bush administration made NO ATTEMPT to deal with this potentially HUGE actual (as opposed to the IMAGINED threat of say, Iraq) THREAT, despite being supposed allies with the extremely questionable Musharraf.

Fact #4:
Khan now says that it was actually our supposed ally Musharraf who was behind the attempts to sell nuclear technology.

The supreme audacity of Cheney to make this argument should anger us all.

Huge LIE #5:
We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists.

(SEE LIE #4!!!!)
Cheney has no shame, and shame on those who prop up and apologize for this man.

Lie #6:
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.

I have yet to see or hear ANY facts that support the first conclusion, and I challenge ANYONE and EVERYONE to find some. Come on, I dare you!

Lie #7:
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.

See the previous lies, as there still has been no CREDIBLE threat of 'catastrophic violence'.

The claim of lawful authority is completely empty. Here are the relevant laws, etc.:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and !! make rules concerning captures !! on land and water. - Article one, section 8 (DEFINING THE POWERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH) This is the 'Capture Clause' This power covers enemy persons as well as property. This alone repudiates the authority claimed by the administration to legalize torture, never mind that their argument was extremely spurious and will not hold up under the scrutiny of the Congress or the courts.

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. -Reagan's signing statement on the UN Convention Against Torture (ratified into US law by Reagan)

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. - Article one, section 9 The United States Constitution

...nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, !! nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law !!; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - Amendment V, The United States Constitution

Military code of conduct: It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article two, The United States Constitution, concerning the duties of the President of the United States.

Now, on to 'Vital information' even supposing that the OLC had the authority to legalize torture (they didn't), and that it wasn't completely opposed as a matter of principle by the framers of the constitution (it was), and that it wasn't just plain evil sadism and a crime against all humanity (it was), so far as has been testified on in Congress, as well as the public statements by former interrogators, it DID NOT AND DOES NOT PROCURE RELIABLE INFORMATION.

I wasn't going to get into this, but as long as I've come this far, let's examine the OLC's spurious argument that these 'enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture'.

Please read the relevant memos. This is how I sum up their arguments.
Their arguments are based upon two suppositions:

Argument 1. Since it is legal to waterboard SEAL trainees in SEER school, then it is legal to waterboard suspected terrorists.

a: The US Constitution in regards to due process of law and habeus corpus is quite clear. Feel free to go back and read them. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand them.
b: SEAL trainees undergo training VOLUNTARILY.
c: The 'techniques' as they were applied to the suspected terrorists bore no resemblance to the extremely controlled conditions in SEER school.
d: The SEER instructor that they consulted as an expert on this technique told them in no uncertain terms that this is torture and would be illegal if used in an official capacity.

Argument 2. They parse the words 'prolonged' and 'severe', having somehow come to the inexplicable conclusion that pain and fear have to be 'prolonged' in order to be considered severe physical and mental suffering. Actually, parse is too kind. They flat out mutilated the words.

Lastly, even if none of these arguments swayed you think about this:

When terrorists are held indefinitely in various makeshift and secret prisons, tried in secret tribunals, and refused the due process of law, we make them political prisoners.

When they are held in Federal prisons, tried in official US courts, and given the full due process of law, they are Criminals.

It is whithin all our power to turn these political prisoners back into the criminals we have good reason to believe they are.

I could go on and on, but is there really any point? I continues to astound me that this 'man' has any credibility whatsoever. We need courage and moral principle such as John Adams demonstrated when he defended the soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre despite his disdain for the British occupation. We need for the Republicans to assist in cleaning up the mess they enabled.

If we clean our own house, America gets to tell the rest of the world it was just some evil people that subverted the will of the nation. If we don't take responsibility and clean our own house, then the World gets to say that America is at risk of becoming a rogue state, the principles upon which our power rests will be compromised, and WW1 and WW2 and all those that died in those wars will have been for naught. It's that simple.

If Pelosi or any other person is guilty of an enabling role (in the use of torture), then by all means they should be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate. If we do not prosecute the individuals, then every single American is guilty of War Crimes. Silence gives consent.

Final thoughts and relevant statements of values and principles:

"The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes." -- Thomas Paine

"Is an enemy so execrable that, though in captivity, his wishes and comforts are to be disregarded and even crossed? I think not. It is for the benefit of mankind to mitigate the horrors of war as much as possible." - Thomas Jefferson

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams

"Not only your Officers, and Soldiers have been treated with a Tenderness due to Fellow Citizens, & Brethren; but even those execrable Parricides [traitors] whose Counsels & Aid have deluged their Country with Blood, have been protected from the Fury of a justly enraged People." George Washington

If there is a man, woman or child in America who can read these depositions (of how Britain treated prisoners) without resentment and horror, that person has no soul, or a very wicked one. - John Adams (Just imagine what he'd think of his America in the 2000's)

Military code of conduct: It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information. I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. / Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution. -signing statement by Reagan / UN Convention Against Torture (ratified into US law by Reagan)

If you made it all the way through this, kudos! I hope it wasn't too incoherent.