Torture: The buck stops...where?
The question was certainly straightforward enough. The answer, though -- the answer left a few threads hanging.
Of course, since the man providing the answer was one Richard B. Cheney, former veep of these United States, you have to expect the occasional bit of obfuscation, misdirection, even on a Sunday morning. After all, if Dick Cheney told us everything, he'd have to kill us. (And he wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over it either.)
Still, it was an answer that only raised more questions.
This is last Sunday on "Face the Nation," and CBS's Bob Schieffer is pressing Cheney about the "enhanced interrogation techniques" that were used on certain ostensibly high-value prisoners in U.S. custody. (You can call it "torture" if you like. Everybody with a half-decent dictionary does -- a rather large group that apparently doesn't include Cheney.)
Anyway, at one point in the interview, according to CBS's own transcript, the conversation goes this way:
SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you -- and you have said -- that you approved this...
CHENEY: Right.
SCHIEFFER: ... somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?
As I said, a pretty straightforward question. But the answer? Not so much.
CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew -- he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it.
"Basically"?! The president "basically" authorized it?!
He knew "a great deal" about the program?!
It was "a presidential-level decision" that "went to the president"?! And he "signed off on it"?!
That's it?! That's as much as George Bush was involved in one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency?! (It was, technically speaking, his
presidency, even if Cheney and Cheney’s people tended to ignore that fact when it was more convenient to pretend otherwise.)
Now, there are at least two ways to read Cheney's response. One, that he's trying to keep his former "boss" -- even to say the word is to laugh -- out of the line of fire. "Plausible deniability" and all that.
Or two, that Cheney's trying to show -- without giving too much away, of course -- that, despite all the rumors to the contrary, he wasn't a totally loose cannon, that everything he did had the president's approval. More or less.
But then there's the third, even more chilling, possibility: that Cheney is being, in his fashion, accurate. Even precise.
That George Bush "basically" authorized the torture program -- but no more than "basically." That he knew "a great deal" about the program -- but not everything. (What about the nasty bits? Was he told about the nasty bits?) That this "presidential-level decision" in fact "went to the president," who "signed off on it" -- but did he
realize what he was signing? Did he understand its implications?
On those questions, Cheney leaves us -- yet again -- in the dark. But we're certainly free to wonder: What did George Bush know, and how well did he know it?
After all, how many times did those lovable cut-ups on "M*A*S*H" trick their hapless commander into signing something he should never have signed? A line of snappy patter, a pile of distracting documents, a quick application of emotional blackmail -- they were all in the toolkit for putting one over on the big guy.
You don't think that George Bush was at least that hapless in real life? Or that Dick Cheney was at least that resourceful?
Call it the Bush-Cheney administration if you insist, but you're twisting -- torturing? -- the facts. All the evidence suggests that when it really mattered, it was the other way around.
Basically.
May 18, 2009 at 8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Prounion and Pharm. There has yet to be a cure using embryonic stem cells. To your ignorant comment of the religious right getting in the way or causing the death of many, how? Funding in this country was always there for research just not funding on MORE than the cells allotted. Yet private companies and schools with their own funding were free to continue the research and found nothing, yet. There are many things that researchers feel will someday lead to discoveries and breakthroughs…do we fund them all? Or as a responsible country do we fund the most promising ones?
May 18, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF the irrational ban on stem cell research has resulted in the greatest country on earth failing to lead the way. Just as the religious right's insitance on abstinance only education has led to death and misery for many.
.
Torture is just plain wrong, why are the Republicans failing when it comes to actual morals?
May 18, 2009 at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce, also in Britain they announced a possible embryonic stem cell cure for deafness in 2006, it is in trials now. Because of lack of funding and limited stem cell material, the US is far behind in this research. Hopefully, with increased funding the science will begin to produce more "cures."
May 18, 2009 at 3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
DumbGirl, I was shortening Republican like Republicans shorten everything. I understand that you didn't get it.
Yes, why would I quote the only intelligent person in the military? Better yet why would you ignore the only intelligent person in the military if you have so much respect for the military. Because you don't. You only care about your blah blah blah speeches about fuzzy kittens and the world being a dangerous place. It is people like you who make the world a dangerous place.
May 18, 2009 at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pharm if it works it will be the first...to the many of adult stem cell cures already being used.
May 17, 2009 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirForce, The London Times online, 4/19/2009, "Blind To Be Cured With Stem Cells."
May 16, 2009 at 11:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The blindness cure is said to be just that, a cure. The government insists on trials for safety`s sake. We`ll see when they are done."
-
Which cure? There are many; surgical and gene therapy to name two.
May 15, 2009 at 9:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
The blindness cure is said to be just that, a cure. The government insists on trials for safety`s sake. We`ll see when they are done.
May 15, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes there have been a number of "could have a cure" medical studies released. To date there has been nothing. Yet, adult stem cell success stories have been around for decades.
May 15, 2009 at 2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
RetiredAirforce, it was announced a few weeks ago by the British, that the number one cause of blindness could have a cure because of embryonic stem cell research. They are doing trials now.
May 15, 2009 at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Stem Cell research."
-
All is better in research land now that govt funding is behind it? All these years and the only success has been from adult stem cells.
May 15, 2009 at 10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
916wi - "have a question for you prounion.....Which promises that Obama made has he followed through on? Thanks in advance......"
.
Stem Cell research. Removing the restriction on sex ed that limited it to abstinance only eduation which has been shown time and again to be less effective than educating on condom use.
May 15, 2009 at 9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Another brilliant post...good job!
May 15, 2009 at 8:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, you're a hypocrite like most republics
May 14, 2009 at 11:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yep, after again being proven wrong your retort is to not discount the facts but toss schoolyard non sequiturs to make yourself feel better.
May 14, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, nice dribble. Evidently you are incapable of comprehending much of anything which would explain why you were in the military for so long.
916WI, demonstrates how to torture someone with his stupidity. Obama won. The electorate rejected you and your ilk.
May 14, 2009 at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
916wi, go to politifact.com and look at the Obamameter. They are keeping track, and they say he has kept 29 so far.
May 14, 2009 at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
"you stopped right before "nuclear bomb"."
-
Yes, to prove you were wrong, again.
May 14, 2009 at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Is torture illegal? You keep referring to the "opinion" people have on this. I ask you, what opinion? Torture is illegal, there is no opinion on legal/illegal only facts."
-
Clearly torture is illegal. The opinions have to do with what is and what constitutes torture.
May 14, 2009 at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have a question for you prounion.....Which promises that Obama made has he followed through on? Thanks in advance......
May 14, 2009 at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
OH Andre I didn't say your list was incorrect -just measly. Any other questions?
May 14, 2009 at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
We know the CIA lied about the yellow cake but now they are telling the truth, sure. Pelosi is a part of Congress. The CIA is a part of the executive branch. She wouldn't be signing off on something she has no control over - durrr.
RAF, you stopped right before "nuclear bomb". Hmmm seems like your facts don't line up with reality once again. Nice dribble.
May 14, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF - Why think is right - My point was that it was morally and ethically wrong. Also it is clearly un-American.
May 14, 2009 at 2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF
+
Is torture illegal?
+
You keep referring to the "opinion" people have on this.
+
I ask you, what opinion? Torture is illegal, there is no opinion on legal/illegal only facts.
May 14, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF -
.
Oh its not the party - its the actions that he took as a part of his belief system. I eagerly await the day when I can come back to the republican party. They did not cut spending they spent their butts off fighting a war that should not have happened.
.
If Obama were to do things like come out against stem cell research and remove funding for condom use education to prevent AIDS, then yes I would realize he too was worried more about his imaginary beliefs that in being effective.
.
Also hilarious is Andre with his measly list of transgressions seriously, do you remember the cluster that was the bush presidency? Really Biden verbal gaffs? I almost forgot how eloquent Bush was. Obama followed through on many of his promises - I have been very pleased, best vote I ever cast.
May 14, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
"And yes there are certain standards we should stand for - one of them is a no brainer - the US does not torture."
-
Everyone has their right to voice an opinion.
May 14, 2009 at 1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The guy was religious nut worried more about his imaginary friend in heaven than on fixing reality here on earth. "
-
I guess I can't argue with you if you truly think this. A tad bit worried though if you really think this of Christians why not treat all politicians that state they are followers to the same reverence? Is it the party they are affiliated with combined with their belief that causes you a problem or is it all who believe?
May 14, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pelosi signed off on it too. String her and chaney both up.
May 14, 2009 at 1:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF - come on dude you remember the time just before the invasion. Bush got Powell to go in front of the united nations with the vial of powder, the bush administration insisted the threat of Iraq using is massive stockpile of nuclear and biological threats were dire and that action needed to be taken immediatly. Then afterwords he calls it a crusade and labels them the axis of evil. The guy was religious nut worried more about his imaginary friend in heaven than on fixing reality here on earth.
.
And yes there are certain standards we should stand for - one of them is a no brainer - the US does not torture.
May 14, 2009 at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Schumer was talking about a hypothetical that has never happened."
-
He made the following statement before raising a hypothetical..."We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never ever be used particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical, if we knew that there was a..." You don't have to like what he said. But you can't be truthful and say he didn't say it.
May 14, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
"good as in we would set the standard that we wanted the world to follow."
-
There are many standards, true?
May 14, 2009 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
"invade a country based on and oops guess we didn't need to invade - no WMDs."
-
People stuck with a singular notion of "one" issue as being the only reason for the war will never see all the reasons.
May 14, 2009 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Its just odd as heck that the Christians took over"
-
What does a persons belief have to do with it? The current President is also a christian, so what, big deal.
May 14, 2009 at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes RAF - good as in we would set the standard that we wanted the world to follow. I would call that good. Its just odd as heck that the Christians took over and we started torturing Muslims. Then they have the guts to say that other monotheisms are prone to violence, meanwhile our christian republican leaders invade a country based on and oops guess we didn't need to invade - no WMDs.
May 14, 2009 at 1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
"now isn't even man enough to take responsibility for his actions."
-
More dribble... Where did he deny it?
May 14, 2009 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Schumer was talking about a hypothetical that has never happened. I don't know of a single instance of a ticking bomb scenario. In fact, he said we should never rule it out in the case of a ticking "nuclear" bomb. This was not a ticking bomb scenario. And members of Congress control purse strings, they do not get to decide these issues like the "decider" who now isn't even man enough to take responsibility for his actions.
May 14, 2009 at 12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Look at what Chuck Schumer had to say about torture on June 8 2004:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4CWk5Lfo...
May 14, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
"We used to be the good guys."
-
? I guess "good" is something you have defined differently than many others.
May 14, 2009 at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
You're too funny prounion.....We'll see if you're singing that same tune after 4 years of Obama--this country is in for a rough ride!!!!
May 14, 2009 at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
We used to be the good guys. Remember when we used to talk about being a beacon of Democracy and peace? Now we torture with the best of them? Invade countries based on lies? Spend money like crazy doing it? Adhere to crazy religious values over reality based programs? I don't think I have ever been more confident that I voted for the right person when I voted for Obama. Republicans should be ashamed of the last 8 years, they blew it.
May 14, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
NeoBartly
=
NeoCon
May 14, 2009 at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
nemesis
+
Just so you know, you can get your political information from other places than Foxnews, Rush, Hannity, etc...
+
Torture is against the law.
+
Waterboarding is torture.
+
Cheaney admitted the GW adminstration approved Waterboarding.
+
The GW administration broke the law.
+
Why isn't that the issue?
+
Why does it matter if torture worked?
+
It is against the law. The US is a nation of laws and our last President broke the law.
+
A lot of things might, "work", but because they are illegal I/we don't do them. Why is our government, specifically the President, above that law?
+
The admission of guilt was made on Sunday by Dick Cheaney.
+
Our president/government should be held to the highest standard. This is why Clinton deserved the trouble he got in for lying about a BJ and this is why GW should be held accountable for breaking the law.
+
If you disagree, tell me why?
May 13, 2009 at 10:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
What? Talk about incoherent dribble. The best was watching Bill Bennett say Wanda Sykes was too much while defending torture. Torture doesn't work. It is "self-defeating" according to General Petreus.
May 13, 2009 at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
So what? Clinton bombed an aspirin factory...he signed off on it and maybe a custodian was killed. Reagan said "we begin bombing in five minutes" and the media went nuts saying he was a loose cannon. What else does the left wing nut media want to hang on Bush in order to glorify their messiah, Obama?
May 13, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh come on! This is not top secret anymore and more people knew about it than not. Look at Pelosi, she knew and said she didn't, imagine that a politician lied!! Get over it, it's done! and they deserved it and it served us well!!
May 13, 2009 at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Um, bad admin. Fine, its easy to slam. I want to see the slams from this present admin.
Torture. Yep that fine line between beliving Charles Manson and others do not deserve what punishment they recieved.
Great. These are new times. Humanity is humanity yes. In-Humanity is to be met by what means?
Sure Glad Obama passed a late night HR1388- Providing Taxpayer money to import Palastinian Hamas empothisers to this Great land; (import tomorows terorist) to Our great land at Our exspence.
Maybe folks should pay a tad bit more attn to whats going on blindly to the majority, and not so much about the people that have been proven already to ordered the deaths of your children/ friends/ husbands/ brothers/sisters.
No, I do not approve of certain tactics. But, this has dragged on so long now, I feel waterboarded.
How about concerned people pay more attn to blind-passed laws/made at 2AM. And stop paying attn to Mrs Obama's tricepts.
Oh, The Glory. Oh The Wise and Wonderful USA savior. Oh This great moral and honest and upfront government of ours. Oh the apothetic onesided brains of the masses.
Wake - Up and smell the doo-doo people.
To stop the unnecesary deaths brought about by conflicts by what-ever means necesary? I am a vet. I follow Mrs Reagan's tone, Just Do It!(or was that Nike?) And Lary the Cable Guy's sediment; Git er Done.
A Tyrant had to gurgle a bit because he knew of these tactics anyways? Tough. Should have run faster then. Eye for and EYE.
with that Bye bye...
May 13, 2009 at 12:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Rick forgot his meds again.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.