by Eric Martin
The artists formerly known as Knight Ridder continue to perform journalistic feats with a maestro's touch. However, at the risk of detracting from McClatchy's exemplary work, this really isn't all that difficult. It requires some basic fact checking, a willingness to let the facts speak for themselves and, where applicable, pointing out when government officials are, you know, lying based on those facts. Because politicians have been known to bend the truth every now and again. Alas, even Dick Cheney:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.
In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."
He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."
In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.
FBI Director Mueller Robert Muller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.
— Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.
However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."
— Cheney said that the Bush administration "moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."
The former vice president didn't point out that Osama bin Ladenand his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistanagainst al Qaida and the Taliban...
— Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."
However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld .
"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin , D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."
— Cheney said that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.
He didn't mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed's alleged role in 9-11.
The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida," Soufan said. Former State Department officialPhilip Zelikow, who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.
— Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department, the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.
Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri, who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi, whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002. While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida, which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.
A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail. [...]
— Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.
A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries. [...]
— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."
Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida, a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.
The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.
The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President ( George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait."
A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidalfound refuge in Baghdad, at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida.
That was a thing of beauty - journalism worth every penny.
They even called AEI a "conservative policy organization," rather than the usual "think tank." Good for them.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | May 22, 2009 at 01:58 PM
Such a repeated line of refutation reminds me of the scene in History of the World, Part One, where Madeleine Kahn is inspecting the guard to choose her escorts.
The difference is, however, that she sings all "no's", and the sheilds of the rest of the media behind her enclose their heads to prevent any of the dissenting information from reaching their brains.
Posted by: Fraud Guy | May 22, 2009 at 02:09 PM
[Cheney] quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."
Lie thought this is, it tells a larger truth, don't you think? I'd say we *definitely* got a 'deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization' during the Cheney/Bush years.
Cheney: The Boy Can't Help It!
Posted by: jonnybutter | May 22, 2009 at 02:10 PM
er...somebody might want to delete c. west
Posted by: jonnybutter | May 22, 2009 at 02:12 PM
It would be nice if Eric could clean up the thread below this one, too.
Posted by: Adam | May 22, 2009 at 02:14 PM
I can only clean up threads to my posts. Can't touch Hilzoy's. I lack the proper security clearance.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 22, 2009 at 02:19 PM
I lack the proper security clearance.
Cruel, cruel irony!
Posted by: Adam | May 22, 2009 at 02:25 PM
ha
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 22, 2009 at 02:34 PM
cruel irony indeed.
but it appears at least the html tags are back
Posted by: efgoldman | May 22, 2009 at 04:44 PM
My God, this one post has made my day complete. A news organization fact-checking and calling bullshit. I think I'll get a jump on happy-hour.
Posted by: Ken | May 22, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Hmm, what does Johnie Hindquarters at Powertools have to say about this?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023618.php
The Most Insanely Biased "news" Story in History
At least I think it's intended to be a news story. It popped up on Yahoo News a while ago, which I assume means that many thousands of people will read it. It's written for McClatchy by two reporters--I guess they are supposed to be reporters--named Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel and is titled "Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements." The article is basically a compendium of DNC/Daily Kos talking points from 2003 to the present. It is full of falsehoods, long-discredited canards, and misleading statements. I'm going to bed and don't have time to deconstruct it, but if you read it no doubt you will be able to make corrections as you go along. It is one of those "news stories" that is intended solely for the ignorant. If we had comments, maybe we could let our readers tear this piece of nonsense apart line by line while we sleep. Perhaps someday.
Posted by: gocart mozart | May 22, 2009 at 05:32 PM
So lessee, they complain that the article is wrong, but refuse to be bothered to actually say why or even invite their own readers to do so. Heckuva job, Powerline.
Posted by: Yuppers | May 22, 2009 at 05:35 PM
The poor folks at the Powerlineblog can't afford a comment section. I guess the economy is hurting everyone.
Posted by: gocart mozart | May 22, 2009 at 05:36 PM
this kind of journalism is invaluable. and so rarely seen these days. i have to take my hat off to them. during the early days of the iraq war i mean the iraq occupation, McClatchy did some excellent work dissecting the facts behind all the bush and blair administrations' fictions.
these guys deserve a pulitzer.
Posted by: michaelj72 | May 22, 2009 at 08:37 PM
It really is amazing to see how many dc denizens think he still has credibility on anything
Posted by: Fledermaus | May 23, 2009 at 01:05 PM
Well, Fledermaus, you just don't understand this town - and (in the immortal words of Der Broder) it's not your town.
Posted by: jonnybutter | May 23, 2009 at 01:23 PM
journalism worth every penny
Which raises the question of how some of our pennies might be transmitted to McClatchy Corp.
I certainly have no desire to subscribe to any of the papers in their chain, but would cheerfully make an annual contribution to keep their DC and Baghdad bureaus functioning and intact. Guess I'll go click on some ads on their page for now...
Posted by: Nell | May 23, 2009 at 02:38 PM
I worked for a McClatchy newspaper for seven years. The guys who wrote for Knight Ridder deserves the credit for this, not McClatchy. McClatchy wouldn't know good journalism if it kicked them in the ass.
Posted by: tomeck | May 23, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Well, yes, tomeck, but the McClatchy bosses are the ones who're going to decide whether the (formerly K-R) DC bureau grows or shrinks.
By the way, when I went back to the page, fully intending to click through and linger on their ads, one ad was one of those drecky flat stomach things and the other was from the {brrr} American Gas Association. Gamely, I clicked away anyhow. The stomach ad gave me a broken link; the AGA ad hadn't loaded anything readable within a minute (I was on dialup). Not a good sign.
Posted by: Nell | May 24, 2009 at 08:25 AM