The Truth About Richard Bruce Cheney
Last night I was on Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC at the top of the hour. But before I came on, through the earpiece I listened to the five minutes that Rachel sketched as a lead-in. Most of it was videotape from the last few days of former Vice President Dick Cheney extolling the virtues of harsh interrogation, torture, and his leadership. I had heard some of it earlier of course but not all of it and not in such a tightly-packed package.
Let's just say that five minutes of the Sith Lord was stunningly inaccurate.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
So, when I got home last night, I thought long and hard about what I knew at this point in my investigations with respect to the former VP's office. Here it is.
First, more Americans were killed by terrorists on Cheney's watch than on any other leader's watch in US history. So his constant claim that no Americans were killed in the "seven and a half years" after 9/11 of his vice presidency takes on a new texture when one considers that fact. And it is a fact.
There was absolutely no policy priority attributed to al-Qa'ida by the Cheney-Bush administration in the months before 9/11. Counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke's position was downgraded, al-Qa'ida was put in the background so as to emphasize Iraq, and the policy priorities were lowering taxes, abrogating the ABM Treaty and building ballistic missile defenses.
Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to "the Cheney method of interrogation."
Those troops have kept al-Qa'ida at bay, killed many of them, and certainly "fixed" them, as we say in military jargon. Plus, sadly enough, those 200,000 troops present a far more lucrative and close proximity target for al-Qa'ida than the United States homeland. Testimony to that fact is clear: almost 5,000 American troops have died, more Americans than died on 9/11. Of course, they are the type of Americans for whom Cheney hasn't much use as he declared rather dramatically when he achieved no less than five draft deferments during the Vietnam War.
Third--and here comes the blistering fact--when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops "the Cheney method of interrogation and torture", the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.
My investigations have revealed to me--vividly and clearly--that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.
What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?
Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney's office that their detainee "was compliant" (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP's office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa'ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, "revealed" such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just "committed suicide" in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi....)
Less important but still busting my chops as a Republican, is the damage that the Sith Lord Cheney is doing to my political party.
He and Rush Limbaugh seem to be its leaders now. Lindsay Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and all other Republicans of note seem to be either so enamored of Cheney-Limbaugh (or fearful of them?) or, on the other hand, so appalled by them, that the cat has their tongues. And meanwhile fewer Americans identify as Republicans than at any time since WWII. We're at 21% and falling--right in line with the number of cranks, reprobates, and loonies in the country.
When will we hear from those in my party who give a damn about their country and about the party of Lincoln?
When will someone of stature tell Dick Cheney that enough is enough? Go home. Spend your 70 million. Luxuriate in your Eastern Shore mansion. Shoot quail with your friends--and your friends.
Stay out of our way as we try to repair the extensive damage you've done--to the country and to its Republican Party.
-- Lawrence Wilkerson
"Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to "the Cheney method of interrogation."
But:
anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, anthrax,...
and:
from Wikipedia: # July 4, 2005: A clinic Palm Beach, Florida was the target of an arson. The case remains open.
# December 12, 2005: Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a “memorial lamp” for an abortion she had had there.
# September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc.
# April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.
# May 9, 2007: An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[20]
# December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Altman’s girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.
# January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness [22]rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.
May 14, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apples to oranges...
May 14, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very true - both are tree-borne fruit.
Much more similar than, say, oranges and Holsteins.
But I know what you mean.
May 14, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes but that's terrorists Cheney agrees with.
May 14, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of think that's the point. And the point re "anthrax" is that there WAS another "terrorist" attack that the Cheney White House did not keep us safe from OR solve as a crime.
So Cheney is ignoring terrorist attacks against targets he does not like and terrorist attacks he did not prevent or solve.
He's blowing smoke, just like he has done since he was first appointed to find a VP for the Little Bush.
May 14, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for useful information!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube to mp3
December 16, 2010 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job, indeed.children health
January 10, 2011 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
February 15, 2011 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this.
May 14, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Colonel. I hope you take to posting more often and providing an alternative view of what being a republican in this country should really mean. It is long past time our party evolved to meet the challenges of the 21st century rather than continue fighting yesterday's culture wars.
May 14, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quote from my grandfather regarding George W. Bush, circa August 2000.
He's a lifelong Republican and contributor, got a pic with Ron and Nancy at the WH and everything.
"I don't much care for him, but he's the party nominee and I'll vote for him."
Follow-the-herd behavior is certainly not limited to the Republican party, but it remains a problem in our political system.
May 14, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Follow-the-herd behavior"
Voting for the Party nominee isn't really that kind of behavior, esp. when there are not viable alternatives. We little folk ARE the herd and we cannot all be leaders at the national level. Becoming better-informed still leaves only 2-3 choices at elections.
"I'm voting for X because my friends all say they like X best" would be following the herd. Disliking a candidate is not sufficient reason to not vote for him/her, it might be the "least worst" choice.
Just sayin'...
May 14, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the Party of Lincoln anymore. Hasn't been since the 1960s.
It's the Party of Nixon.
And Dick Cheney has taken Nixonian secrecy and executive power and "perfected" it (in his deranged mind), by taking it to its logical extreme. Or at least as far as he was able to take it (surely not as far as he would have liked).
-- ARG
May 14, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the party of Lincoln Town Car and Lincoln Continental.
Take away Cheney's microphone. Let him wheeze in his bunker.
May 14, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney and Rumsfeld were both Nixon men and they held a grudge about Nixon's fall. Cheney found his opportunity when he chose himself to be Bush's VP. While the space cowboy dithered and blundered, Cheney and Rumsfeld grabbed all the power they could. "Sweep it all up. Things relevant and not." said Rumsfeld, who finally found his way to get the war with Iraq he wanted. Torture people to give the answers he wanted. The ultimate cherrypicking.
It's another piece of the mosaic of lies Cheney built to achieve the goals of PNAC. Paul O'Neill said about the run up to the war "It was all about how to get it done"
We were lied to by Leaders who ordered techniques used by Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Torquemada to get answers the Leaders wanted. Dick Durbin was forced to apologize for making the comparison but he was spot on.
May 14, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on. Read Nixonland (Rick Perlstein) for the details. And don't forget that Cheney and Rumsfeld are both alums of the Nixon administration.
May 14, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It hasn't been the Party Of Lincoln ('so we can't be racists') since 1876, when the Republican Party officially sold the blacks back into the slavery of the South in order to break the electoral tie and win the White House. The deal ended Reconstruction and all the military protection of voting rights, already barely supported from the White House, officially was withdrawn.
Blacks weren't allowed to vote again in most of the the South until after Johnson got the Voting Rights Act through Congress.
May 14, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, of course, about the party's loss of moral compass, which happened long ago. Also, the late 1800s is when the Republican party transformed into a corporatist party, supporting the (northern) industrialists as they ushered in the first Gilded Age.
The 1960s led to the loss of the "solid south" after the passage of civil rights legislation, and the birth of the neo-con movement. The current Republican party is a group of corporatist bigots who believe in a daddy-knows-best form of near-dictatorial government (as long as they're the ones in charge), and I feel that is best represented by Nixon. (In many ways, Reagan was worse, and clearly Bush/Cheney were in a league of their own, but Nixon is the iconic symbol of this type of executive malfeasance.)
So every time someone refers to the Republican party as "the Party of Lincoln", I believe this should be countered by the much more accurate description, "the Party of Nixon".
-- ARG
May 15, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both parties have been the corporate party for as long as the country has been in existence. Our history isn't so linear or black and white as this comment suggests. As late as the election of 1912, democrats were winning by calling republicans and third-party candidates "socialists" as if it was an epithet.
May 16, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you agree that the Republicans are most accurately called "The Party of Nixon". Good.
-- ARG
May 16, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The modern incarnation of the party could be called that, yes. However, like the democrats, the republicans have changed stripes once or twice. I am more interested in what things can become vice what they happen to be at this current moment.
May 16, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting perspective on this apt "party of Nixon" label from 2004:
http://blackintrospection.blogspot.com/2004/09/party-of-lincoln-why-lincoln.html
May 19, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY!
My question to Col. Wilkenson is this:
If you have the clarity to recognize that your party is no longer the party of Lincoln, HOW CAN YOU CONTINUE TO BE A REPUBLICAN????
Why don't you take a public stand and change your affiliation BEFORE Cheney orders you to do so? [like he did to your former boss last week..!]
Don't you feel lonely by being in the 21%?
May 15, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colonel,
Excellent post. Oh that there were more Republicans like you. You sir are the type of loyal opposition this country needs.
May 14, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF?
What is so commendable that Wilkerson is pushing the same bullshit "flypaper" theory about Iraq? Because he is throwing brickbats at Cheney when he and his boss where all to happy to push the made-up fabricated and torture extracted claims in front of the entire world in order to justify invading Iraq?
Step back and weigh who is writing this and why.
May 14, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Step back and see his actual point and not the point you had come to before reading it. Wilkerson was not being complementary when talking about the war and its a ability to kill Americans in Iraq instead of Iowa. I am not sure where you see justification anywhere in this fairly pointed critique from a former "company" man.
This sort of epiphany should be encouraged and not shouted down. Wilkerson wasn't in a position to do anything about calls being made by Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld. What the hell is Powell's chief of staff going to do in that situation? He is going to roger up and do his job. Do you know he didn't counsel his boss to do something he didn't ultimately do?
You are taking a very narrow view of how these things work. I am not saying the guy didn't have a hand in some huge mistakes, but taken collectively his was hardly the most guilty hand. Further, after resigning from service, Wilkerson and Paul O'Neil and others were consistent critics. It's not like this is a new stance. At some point, people need to be able to change their mind and work toward a new standard.
Lessons learned must be allowed or this country will simply see-saw from ideology to the next, never really accomplishing anything.
May 14, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The top recommended quote on my blog is by the Colonel -- and it's a doozy.
If the Colonel is fit to serve when it comes time to have another Republican president, it would be great if it somehow could be him.
May 14, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering "the Cheney methods of interrogation", simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator."
So a year after we invaded Iraq, there was no more torture. Two things seem clear; torture was used to find justification for the invasion of Iraq; over four years of NOT torturing detainees on record and NO terrorist attacks.
This completely dismantles Cheney's "Obama is making us less safe" argument.
As Wilkerson suggested.
May 14, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you mentioned 'photographs' maybe you can tell me why 'photographs' were taken (and kept) in the first place?
(During Nixon's fall from grace, the constant question among us plebs out here was why did he tape (and keep) evidence that would, and did, incriminate him.)
May 14, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11...
That's false, and I wish people would stop saying it.
There was the Anthrax attacks in Sept/Oct of 2001, and then in 2002 there was the terrorist incident at LAX.
And that's just 2 incidents.
May 14, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither of those incidents were connected to foreign terrorists. The anthrax was connected to the USA and the LAX guy was an Egyptian that had lived in the US with a green card for 2 years. It was not called a terrorist incident, but a criminal one.
May 14, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, defining things away can be handy.
It's basically the same difference as between 'torture' and 'harsh interrogation'.
But leadership has, imho, an obligation to speak clearly and to correct plausible false impressions when questions are raised. This applies more to people in office than to someone like Cheney now. But given his recent position, it does apply to him as well (it should apply to all pundits, imnsho).
What annoys me is that Cheney doesn't get challenged enough, or gets challenged in ways which just add more chaff from some other side of an issue.
May 14, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless, it seems clear that the anthrax attack came from a home-grown right-wing terrorist pretending to be an Islamic radical. Look at the targets he picked: Sen. Daschle, Sen. Leahy, and several "liberal media" targets. Also notice that whoever did it apparently got away with it.
May 14, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
that still puts the lie to "no attack". I don't have Cheney's exact words here but my recollection is that it was unqualified.
May 14, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The attack on LAX was considered a terrorist incident by US and Israeli intelligence.
May 14, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good thing. The real question is how many American lives did this save?
People need to visit this site:
http://www.thebarackobamawatch.com/
May 14, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The link is to a site that bashes Obama, albeit with a civilized tone. Waste of time and bandwidth.
May 14, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
well . . .
Always keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it convenient the alleged perpetrator of the Anthrax attack killed himself. I wish I could remember the alternative notion as to why these packages were sent to Daschle and Leahy. It was not related to 9/11. DANG! What was that conspiracy theory?!? It made a lot of sense as to why Dems were targeted during a clearly Republican Administration.
May 14, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. The previous post was a reply to the above post by seashell.
As to the obamawatch website. It's non-partisan label is merely the refuge of Republicans ashamed of their party, bit not enough to change their perspective. I guess the negative-reinforcement program has not yielded any changes in them. It's is from the Republican deserters who still wish to fight for their losing cause.
May 14, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find such suicides very suspicious.
May 14, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, that anti-Obama website is a joke. I know, I know, it's an "independent", who happens to be pro-life, pro-gun, anti-immigration. Sounds like a genuine independent there.
It's a waste of time. Don't visit this site.
May 14, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to "the Cheney method of interrogation."
Nonsense. There is no evidence whatever that the Iraq adventure contributed anything to the debility of AQ as far as attacks on the US go. Maybe you can make up a story about Afghanistan, but the idea that suppressing AQ required a lengthy, blundering, murderous military operation in that wretched country is transparently fantastical.
May 14, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It certainly does sound like more of the bogus "fight them over there in order not to fight them here" argument. Again, perhaps in Afghanistan, but the same claim for Iraq is specious.
May 14, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It is the same bullshit "flypaper theory" trotted out in new garb in order to attack Cheney, so it gets unthinking applause from many here. When by all rights it should be lambasted as the same tired, fraudulent, made-up, intellectually dishonest bullshit it always was.
This strikes me as self-serving bullshit to try and whitewash his and his former boss's rep by attack Darth Cheney when they were a party to the using the very same bogus tortured intel to push for invading Iraq, and now this ass-clown is trotting out the same "flypaper theory" warmed over. And we are suppose to applaud this dreck?
May 14, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think he meant that. I understood him to mean that al-Qaeda didn't HAVE to try to attack the U.S. anymore because Afghanistan and then Iraq became full of U.S. targets.
Of course, I could be missing something.
May 14, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. Occam's Razor needs to be applied to any reading between the lines.
May 14, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that was my take on what he was saying as well.
May 18, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strongly, strongly seconded.
I adhere to the "shot their wad" theory as to why we have had no large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Basically, they got lucky once - a look at the Al Quaeda attempts prior to 9/11 were clumsy failures. Once they went ultra-lowtech, they succeeded due to the ridiculous lack safeguards in our commercial airline industry (e.g., no locks on airplane cabin doors). Heightened awareness of the threat, combined with a Muslim-American population that generally is happy with their lot here, made such low-tech methods much harder to pull off.
This post is obviously an attempt to whitewash the military and the CIA's roles in America's human rights abuses after 9/11. When Wilkerson states that all torture stopped after Spring of 2004, I simply don't believe him.
This is nothing but pro-national security propaganda, and should be dismissed as such.
May 14, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
This cannot be stressed enough . . .
See my comment below here.
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"required" is your invention. It may have helped, maybe not. I'm sure it didn't help on the PR side even if it distracted AQ. Until the fat lady sings the "all clear" aria, it may prove to have made things worse in the long run.
I wasn't clear whether you were calling Cheney's line nonsense or calling Wilkerson's stuff nonsense...
May 14, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. Cheney, Bush and their minions are vile contemptible criminals, and the restoration of legitimacy as to American principles of fairness and integrity requires not just revalation and repudiation of all of their crimes, but appropriate punishments for them.
President Obama, get a spine and a pair, where any hesitancy to proceed against these bastards constrains you. They would have had no such hesitancy against anyone else.
May 14, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
..."the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely" to the fact that the people that orchestrated 9/11 planned to use it later as evidence that we need them to protect us from such attacks.
May 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that 911 Theorists like to bring up their theories in unrelated discussions is evidence that their intention is to shape dialogue in a direction that is more comfortable to them than confronting concrete provable facts about gov't wrongdoing.
A sort of "false-flag commentary," if you will.
May 14, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan"
Is the author actually suggesting that the US troop presence in the Middle East is physically preventing any of the thousands of jihadists in countries around the world, specifically, I don't know, SAUDI ARABIA, from getting on a flight to the US? Really?
This is the same "fight them over there so we don't have fight them over here" nonsense that we've come to expect from Bush admin. dead-enders.
May 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. He is suggesting it is a shorter flight.
May 14, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly these terrorists are primarily concerned with travel convenience, jet lag and so on, and thats why this policy has worked so well.
May 14, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't think of them as terrorists. Some of them are freedom fighters in their own minds. Iraq was a front-line battleground of the new Crusades. It also had pretty open borders and as jason notes it was also logistically accessible. Given the many reports of "foreign fighters" being captured or killed in Iraq (or Afg.) the notion has some merit even if only a little.
May 14, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How likely do you think it is that these "freedom fighters" could get within a thousand miles of US soil in order to kill Americans in the first place?
I agree that they are fighting what they perceive (somewhat correctly, IMO) as a new Crusade. But for many of them, that crusade began with our invasion of Iraq. The Taliban, on the other hand, are fighting primarily for control of their native land, and against foreign invaders/occupiers. Their involvement in 9/11 seems to consist of sheltering fellow travelers on their fundamentalist road.
The idea that either of these groups (foreign fighters in Iraq, the Taliban) would be have the desire or the means to travel to America, successfully plot and carry out a terrorist attack without raising all kinds of suspicion, is simply incredible.
The lie that our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan is responsible for our security here at home is one of the most pernicious in the Republican playbook. You shouldn't enable that argument just because of the impossibility of proving it definitely false.
May 14, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have made us more secure - if anything, just the opposite, and I think we all know that. Rather, the point being made is a far simpler one: While they may well be developing plans for additional strikes within the U.S., they haven't needed to implement those plans, because a target-rich environment exists nearby, allowing them to conserve logistical and material resources while continuing their activities.
Are they worried about 'jet lag'? Obviously not. But 'convenience' is another story. What we might label 'convenience', they might frame as 'we can mount one attack within the U.S. for the price of six or seven closer attacks', and at that trade-off, the call's a no-brainer.
Don't mistake acknowledging similar results - lack of any successful, big-ticket foreign attack on U.S. soil - for agreeing with the underlying idea that we're safer because of the wars.
May 14, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right, Bill.
May 15, 2009 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
But that very same fraudulent argument is getting applauded by many here because it is directed at Darth Cheney.
The "flypaper" theory is just as full of shit when it comes out of Wilkerson's mouth as it does when it comes out Cheney's mouth.
May 14, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, lestat. They are only interested in a judgment-free search for Platonic "truth" in this matter. We must not question them.
Since he's extremely obtuse, this is indeed a slam at "eds'" comment below.
May 14, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Judgment should be reserved for judges, juries or God, depending on your belief structure.
At best, outside observers can form a common sense opinion based on the available facts and do our best to communicate it. Odd how our disagreement with your stances is somehow offensive.
That is what remains fundamentally wrong with our politics.
May 15, 2009 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's offensive is people calling me a "liar" for having an opinion that is different from theirs. And I'll trust my judgment as much as any judge or jury I've ever witnessed.
May 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what ideologues always say when confronted with their own logical fallacies. No one called you a liar as far as I can see, just objected to your use of the word to describe contrary opinions.
May 16, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry that you interpret my interest in truth as "enabling" those whom you consider to be "them". If you need to lie about "them" in order to support your own position, you are not my friendly ally.
I think you may be missing the large view picture here. If there is internal AQ etc. pressure to attack symbols of anti-Islamic demons (as per Islamist mindset), aka "Western targets" it doesn't necessarily focus on particular targets. So that pressure will tend to follow the front lines of obvious conflict. To the AQ naive member, Iraq is a justified defensive action, thus attractive.
You might also consider that another minor attack on a US city would likely be effective at getting even more worldwide support for the US and more pressure on AQ and its supporters.
I'm not condoning the invasion of Iraq etc., I'm pointing out objective evaluations of the situation.
May 14, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "lie" are you talking about?
May 14, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hypothetical one referencing your earlier post, Mr. Stupid Slammer.
Please leave your abuse at the door.
May 14, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no lie in that post. Asshole.
May 14, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The lie that our adventures in Iraq "
l-i-e
That is one, for starters, Mr. Abusive Asshole Caller.
But maybe you don't read well, or maybe you read well enough but are here to be abusive.
May 14, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never said the policy worked well, just that Iraq is closer than Iowa. Logistically speaking, us going to war in Ira and Afghanistan was the best thing that could have ever happened for Al Queda.
May 14, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This presupposes that there was a large number of Muslim fanatics intent on attacking America on its own soil pre-invasion.
I dispute that presupposition.
May 14, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define what "large number" actually means. For that matter, define fanatics.
There are clearly a number of people with significant resources and an extreme political agenda informed by decades of shady American foreign policy. These same folks have taken to blowing up Americans wherever they can find them, the more official the better like our embassies or the USS Cole.
Not sure what it is you are disputing, unless your point is that "it" is all a vast conspiracy with the CIA paying Bin Laden & Company to blow up the WTC and then stash him away somewhere, chasing shadows and rumors. I won't disagree that a lot of things don't add up about a lot of "official stories" but good luck proving any of it or convincing enough people that such a thing is going on.
May 14, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to distinguish between those who object to our military presence in the Middle East, and take up arms against our presence there, and those who have declared war on America itself, and believe bombings and suicide attacks on our soil are a proper way to wage that war.
I believe the first number is larger than the second, which consists as far as I know only of Al Quaeda, by orders of magnitude. I don't have any numbers to back me up, I just think that if Al Quaeda had the broad support you suggest, they would have attempted more attacks in America.
Maybe you should provide numbers that show the anti-American fighters in the Middle East would be attempting to come over here and blow us up if we did not have a massive military presence in their countries.
And maybe you should also take the self-serving comments of someone with a reputation to rehabilitate with a grain of salt.
May 14, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't suggest broad support, but when you are talking about a billion and a half Muslims, they don't don't need support all that broad for it to be significant. In fact, all they really need is money and time, which they have in great supply.
We have had a large military and intelligence presence in the middle east for decades. That seems to be part and parcel of much of the antipathy for America. That the war in Iraq made it worse isn't in dispute, but to argue that they might feel more comfortable attacking us there than planning something in the US is hardly a crack-pot position.
I take everything with a grain of salt, but I don't approach each discussion ready to be offended and not willing to listen at all. That seems to be the case around here many times - conservatives are damned if they do and damned if they don't, so how do you suppose anything will ever change?
May 14, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think we need to challenge the assumptions underlying the arguments of those, like Wilkerson, who enabled the worst foreign policy decision since (at least) LBJ decided to send half a million troops into Vietnam.
This assertion of Wilkerson's ("Second, the fact no attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11--much touted by Cheney--is due almost entirely to the nation's having deployed over 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and not to "the Cheney method of interrogation.") is, as we say in the law, an assertion not in evidence. It is not provable other than by stating there has been no attacks in America/we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan/ergo the invasions are the reason. Which is to say, it's no proof at all, merely a tautological assertion.
I, for one, am such a critic of our actions post-9/11 that I am not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an architect of those actions. Wilkerson is trying to smear Cheney (did I just write ("smear Cheney?") and deflect his own culpability onto someone who is universally despised.
Finally, Wilkerson has as much factual support for his statement I quoted above as I do for any I have made in this thread. And I have the added advantage of having been opposed to the invasion, and to have known (or at least strongly suspected), that the threat allegedly posed by Saddam Hussein was a propaganda creation from the getgo.
I can respect Wilkerson for wanting to walk back his deceit in the runup to the invasion. I can't respect the self-serving assertions he is making in order to do so.
May 14, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we just read the same article two different ways, because I saw very little self-serving historical revisionism taking place. I saw a guy who has finally woken up to what he was previously not seeing and exhorting his party to change. I think that sort of thing should be encouraged, despite any contextual difficulties we may have with the conversation.
May 14, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you at least acknowledge that Wilkerson is giving exclusive, or at least primary, credit to the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions for the prevention of another terrorist attack in America? It might be sloppy writing on his part, but I don't know how that sentence can be read otherwise, and that is the claim to which I most strenuously object.
May 14, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that his intent, then his assertion is, indeed, fatally flawed. At best, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq may have diverted or delayed attacks w/in the US; the absolute most they have done, vis-a-vis prevention, is perhaps killed someone or someones who would have otherwise later come up with an attack plan. But by and large, what they have done is provided targets of opportunity for a low-level 'keep our brand name out there' campaign of terrorist attacks that give continued visibility (which is needed for recruitment) while larger, more complex plans can be given a longer development cycle.
In effect, they've provided a cheap series of Direct-to-DVD productions while the studio works on the next big-budget movie.
May 14, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't agree that is what he was trying to say. I thought that was tangential at best to his underlying objective of prompting his party to look further into the past for an identity.
I see a man who thought he was doing the right thing, like many in his position before him, and is pissed that it turned out like this. Not every Soldier is happy about the orders they follow, but they do follow orders. Men like Colonel Wilkerson are hardly an anomaly in American history.
Some of our most venerated presidents and statesmen were cold, heartless bastards who caused the deaths of thousands. A little perspective with regards to this man's place in things seems in order. Otherwise, the entire liberal argument becomes "Get the republicans! Architects of doom and destruction!" Beyond sounding unhinged, it loses the fact that more than a few democrats enabled that horror show and many have done little to stop it since.
Empire is a bipartisan strategy in this country. has been since at least the end of World War II.
May 15, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's what HE FUCKING SAID, DUDE. I was QUOTING him.
Jesus fucking Christ, isn't there a Republican in America who can discuss things honestly.
What you think he said is irrelevant. It's his own that count.
May 16, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that isn't what he said. It was what your interpreted or inferred from what he said, which is why you don't offer actual quotes, just ALL CAPS AND PROFANITY!!!! What a way to make a point, whatever that point happens to be,
May 16, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: For what it's worth, I agree that challenging underlying assumptions should be one of our primary tools as thinking and informed citizens. But we need to challenge assumptions about all things, not just those we disagree with.
May 14, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that isn't often well understood in this debate about whether the Bush (or should it be Cheney?) administration's policies kept us "safe" is that large-scale terrorist attacks like we saw on 9/11 are extremely low-probability events, something like 10,000 year floods. They don't happen very often. So their not happening isn't necessarily a sign that any one has done anything effective to prevent them. The probabilities are such that these attacks won't occur, regardless of whether our efforts to stop them are effective or not. Let's look at the example of the 10,000 year flood. Let's pretend Cheney was doing anti-rain dances every morning in his undisclosed location. And no 10,000 year flood occurred. Should we then believe him if he were to claim that his anti-rain dances kept us safe from 10,000 year floods? Of course not. The fact that the 10,000 year flood didn't occur proves nothing about the effectiveness of Cheney's dances. The exact same argument can be made about Cheney's torture and terrorist attacks on US soil. The fact that a rare event hasn't occured proves nothing about the effectiveness of the actions anyone has taken to prevent the rare event.
May 15, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't necessarily disagree that an operation as huge and "successful" as 9-11 was something that won't happen everyday, but that wasn't for lack of trying or seeking such opportunities. We have suffered plenty of American deaths at the hands of religious fanatics over the decades to call the threat of a 9-11 event being planned a little more likely than a 10,000 year flood.
So, rather than talk about the threat of terrorism in such terms, I would suggest a different explanation of why we haven't seen any attacks. It isn't because George Junior tortured people, either. We have done everything Bin Laden could possibly hope in response to an event that I still don't think is totally understood despite our lackluster national investigation. Why should he waste his resources if we'll come to Muslim lands and give credence to everything he has ever said of the Great Satan?
Occam's Razor usually applies when trying to distill such complex issues. Ironic that the simplest answer is usually correct.
May 15, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is 19 a "large number"?
What presupposition? How does jason's comment make any such presupposition at all?
May 14, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
@jason "Never said the policy worked well, just that Iraq is closer than Iowa"
The waters have been sufficiently muddied at this point, but just to have the last word let me remind you that our military bases throughout the Middle East have always been "closer" than the Towers.
May 14, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those bases are better protected as well, which is why they mostly attacked embassies and the like. There really is no one right answer in this debate, only shades of context determined by political ideology or relative understanding of the various and sundry geopolitical realities that led us to this point.
May 14, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, your original argument was that terrorists aren't attacking us over here because they don't have to travel as far to attack our military "over there." You're now arguing that terrorist PREFER to travel long distances to attack civilian targets, rather than carry out a more difficult attack on a military target. Mutually exclusive, no?
You're correct that there can be no resolution to this debate, as long as one side is allowed to perpetually move the goalposts. If you assess this discussion with any kind of intellectual honesty, I think you'll realize the "debate" already ended.
May 14, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment makes no sense at all. Performing attacks in the middle of a chaotic war zone a few hundred miles from home is way simpler than planning something in the US on the other side of the planet.
I actually didn't make any argument one way or the other, just that such a position makes sense. I think you reading way too much into a simple statement of understanding someone's position. No goals were moved in making that statement nor was it a statement about the overall policies that led us into Iraq in the first place, which obviously had nothing to do with deterring attacks in the US.
Again, not really sure what point you are trying to make here.
May 14, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it would be more accurate to say, "We're fighting them over there because we went over there." I doubt many of the fighters would have made a trip to the US. Coming to the US requires a whole different skill set for these people then crossing the border.
Cheney should be saying:
" Beware of the pre-9/11 mindset. Judge my Administration beginning on 9/12. "
May 14, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is incredibly powerful. It should be read by every policy maker, everyone in the media, and the public at large.
One critically important point:
The entire history of torture, from the Spanish Inquisition to today, is that its purpose has never really been aimed at extracting accurate information. Rather, it's to extract words that the torturers want to hear -- usually "confessions" that they can use for propaganda purposes.
Which puts Cheney in the same league as tin-pot dictators the world over.
May 14, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct.
As the interrogator behind the screen pointed out yesterday, the good intel came from good interrogation techniques, not torture.
They pulled him off after he had gotten the good intel in order to bring in the torturers, and that's when Z went silent.
Torture is designed and used to get FALSE confessions.
Who knows what else they might have gotten, what other good intel, if they had not decided to switch to torture instead.
Finally, why is no one asking "Who were these 'contractors'?" I'm betting either Blackwater or Halliburton.
May 14, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure the Abu Z. contractor was Mitchell and one other person.
May 14, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who pushed those fake "smoking gun" arguments obtained by torture? Mr. Wilkerson and his former boss Powell.
May 14, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
lay off. you act as if larry hasn't already spoken out on the shit almost nonstop since it happened:
"My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."
the fact is wilkerson isn't trying to rewrite history, he's mad as hell that not only did he get fucked by the cheney administration just like everybody else but that he was one of the people that helped do the fucking. he ain't pretending otherwise but you all seem too busy shooting your mouths off to notice.
May 14, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. Great comment.
May 15, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Okie Dokie Artichokie . . .
Everybody jump and stand tall when Major Kernel O. Corn commands attention.
Wilkerson is simply continuing the only course of action to his being a party to the "pro-national security propaganda" and thereby covering his own posterior for posterity.
Now ... your friendly fellow rocks in the box are calling.
~OGD~
May 17, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for Cheney testifying...as he's strapped to a waterboard by Jesse Ventura.
May 14, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to argue that increased airport security deserves a lot more credit than torture tactics. Don't sound like much, I know but that's probably the biggest thing. Basic crime prevention techniques - don't give the criminal an easy target...
Had the Bush Admin acted to prevent the attacks (like say, calling for increased airport security thereby making airplanes much more difficult targets to hijack) when Richard Clarke was sounding the alarm, those attacks would have been most likely thwarted or AQ would have been forced to change their plans and targets and further erode their chances of pulling off a successful attack.
May 14, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As we drove across Kansas looking at the winter wheat starting to wave in the wind, I thought about those party of Lincoln Republicans. Farms inherited from three generations, Co-Op elevators, Wal*Mart-free small towns with little video rental shops and Mom's Cafe, hard working kids in school with hopes for a bright furture, wind generators and pig factories roll by the windshield once we get off the turnpike. Basicly decent people who must wonder what the hell happened. They put in the sweat and saw their savings stolen, their nation shamed, and their jobs shipped away. A lot of these people are going to just go out to the barn and overhaul the old tractor motor one more time so they can get the spring wheat drilled and hope for rain and keep on working no matter what the politicians decide. The reality of family needs dwarfs any politcal label in Kansas.
I think President Obama is missing a great chance to recruit these people as his supporters, even if they continue to claim their family legacy as Republicans. But then the Republicans also missed that chance by failing to deliver their promise of working class prosperity, etc.
May 14, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great comment. I think we are missing many opportunities right now to change the very nature of the dialogue.
May 14, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Uhhhhh . . .
Colonel:
While you're pointing your finger over there, how about the truth about Colin Powell?
All I would really like to know is how YOU felt when you saw YOUR BOSS on TV pointing to a bunch of cartoons of supposed lethal mobile biological weapons facilities trailers (oh that's right let's blame tha one on Curveball) and also holding up that little model vial of anthrax as a representation of the amount of anthrax needed to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans while that old '80s era film of the F-1 Mirage jet spraying something out it's exhaust was shown (video).
From top to bottom and bottom to top, everyone in the chain-of-command is complicit.
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. This asshole and his boss Powell had no problem using the poisoned fruits of those torture sessions to make fraudulent claims that we had to invade Iraq.
May 14, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you really wanted to know you could just use GOOGLE and find out that larry has spoken EXTENSIVELY about that shit.
seriously. i get the impression that some of you people here would have no idea who the fuck larry wilkerson is if his post hadn't told you. so eager to jump down his throat but in doing so only revealing your own ignorance.
May 14, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Seriously . . .
I think you've been hanging out too long in that favorite box of rocks of yours.
Now run along and twiddle that feather boa that's hanging over your shoulders you pencil necked troll.
And close your piehole, that drool is embarrassing
~OGD~
May 15, 2009 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
More inane quacking from the Can't Take A Contrary Opinion Choir. Run along, duck. You clearly don't have enough imagination to participate in this discussion.
May 15, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Go Blow Yourself Hot Air . . .
~OGD~
May 15, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, oh. The bolded text and sexual innuendo have come out. I must really be ruffling your feathers now.
May 16, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey sonny boy ...
The only sexual innuendo to be found is bouncing around within the hollow vacuum located between the two gnarled pieces of skin covered cartilage you call your ears mounted on that empty skull of yours.
Now -- why not try pounding sand? Or better yet ... go get us a 5 gallon bucket of steam and a hundred feet of waterline.
Bye bye ... Sonny boy ...
~OGD~
May 17, 2009 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Go Blow Yourself..." isn't sexual innuendo? For that matter, "Pound sand" implies an event on the other side of the hills. You really are incapable of self-reflection or rational conversation.
May 17, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Uhhh . . .
Sonny Boy -- Whatever gets you through your nightmare . . .
-Al-
May 18, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I commend mr wilkinson, and I do not want to quibble...but isn't what has been going on in Gitmo and other Dark Sites around the world, still torture - or at least completely unamerican and unconstitutional punishments?
My guess is we are outsourcing our current tortures to contractors or other nation-states.
I said almost immediately after 9-11 that Billy Clinton would have had bin ladin served up on a platter.....after a whirlwind tour of cigar smoking and backslapping with prominent leaders in the muslim world and middle east/asian provinces.
Now I know that is simplistic and too cute...but the sentiment is correct. We could have had the whole world scowling at AQ, denying them sanctuary, giving them up, helping us search and destroy them...but instead we got the whole world scowling at us. And we have commited obscenities and atrocities that we cannot take back as we pursued Buusch and TheCheney's path towards destruction.
May 14, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only....
May 14, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As others have noted, the tired talking point that Bush and crew kept us safe after 9/11 is a fraudulent assertion. From the anthrax to the Madrid and Bali bombing, etc. Americans/westerners have been and continue to be the target of violent extremists. The Madrid bombing was in fact in part a retaliation for Spain's participation in the Iraq invasion. So Wilkerson's "point" that our troops in Iraq have drawn attacks there (a partial embrace of the flypaper theory the Bush criminal enterprise pushed as well) is directly refuted by the Madrid bombings. In addition, even if we overlook that glaring refutation and take it on faith that "they" are attacking our troops there instead of "here" that means every dead American solider in Iraq is another terrorist attack against America/Americans. And even if one were to intellectual be dishonest and somehow claim those don't count because they are not on U.S. soil, then we should ignore the COle bombing, the African embassy bombings, etc.
The entire trope is absurd and it is a little odd to see Wilkerson run up the same tired talking points in new grab in order to attack the Bush administration, particularly since he and his boss were front and center to push the rationale for invasion which was predicated on the very false information extracted via torture he is now rightfully excoriating his former co-worker/teammates in the Bush administration over.
While the upper levels of the former administration rightly deserve to be on trial for their crimes, it is also fraudulent that one of them now pen's a published piece to push the same tired arguments they have for years to point the finger at the others.
May 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which suggests the question; Why didn't the Bush/Cheney gang protect us BEFORE 9/11?
On the other hand;
It must follow that Bill Clinton kept us safer for a longer period than Bush since the first attack on the World Trade Center took place only 26 days into Clinton's first term, not 9 months later as with Bush. There were no following attacks here during the rest of Clinton's Presidency. Of the nine perpetrators of the first attack, 8 were caught, tried and convicted and are now serving life terms in US Prisons. Clinton did this without invading Iraq, without using the cover of war to create a separate prison system not governed by U.S. laws, without ordering the torture of detainees, without sending others off to be tortured abroad, without illegally wiretapping Americans, and in general without ignoring and flouting the U.S. Constitution, not to mention the extreme secrecy and claims to an all powerful Presidency.
May 14, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There have been other terrorist attacks on U.S. territory since September 11, 2001. See below.
The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091700317.html
SANAA, Yemen, Sept. 17 -- Attackers used vehicle bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons to mount a coordinated assault on the U.S. Embassy here Wednesday, leaving 10 guards and civilians dead outside the main gate but failing to breach the walled compound. No Americans were killed.
Yemeni officials and experts on al-Qaeda said an aggressive new generation of the group's leaders in Yemen was responsible for the assault....
From Encyclopedia.com
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401801358.html
Embassies are considered an extension of the home country's territory, so no one is permitted to enter an embassy without the ambassador's permission...
May 14, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of the people Cheney had tortured came from the invasion of Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. It's becoming more clear that these people were tortured not to get information needed to avert terrorist attacks but to get further justification for invading Iraq. Many were apparently tortured to death when they wouldn't deliver. Cheney keeps diverting everyone's gaze with tough talk about averting more terrorist attacks, hoping the real motivation doesn't see much daylight. Why else would he make so many unprecedented appearances in the media, if not to direct the debate?
We should remember that this process of torture began only six months after Cheney's Energy Task Force completed it's work - the records for which Cheney went all the way to the Supreme Court to keep secret. It should come as no surprise that one of the few documents we've seen from that task force is a map of the Iraqi oil fields.
May 14, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two huge facts to swallow-
1- Cheney was willing to torture like a animal to get someone to say that Sadam was linked to Osama. That was the holy grail key to getting his war for oil started in Iraq.
2- Cheney was willing to 'out' an undercover CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction to silence doubts about his lie that Sadam had a nuclear program, another key to getting his war for oil started in Iraq.
He wanted the oil in Iraq available to his friends in the oil business. Halliburton and all the big US oil companies simply could not resist getting their greedy hands on the worlds second largest oil reserves period. I would bet everything that if the Supreme Court of Conservative Assholes ..... I mean of the United States .... had not agreed to keep the Cheney energy policy meetings secret from the American public we would have our smoking gun on what Mr. Cheney had in mind in the first place. I would go so far to say that Cheney grabbed the chance to be vice-president for this reason above all others. This man should be executed for war crimes, crimes against Humanity, and crimes against the Earth.
May 14, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if the story holds that the real reason for torture was to extract false confessions rather than elicit evidence of future attacks, isn't that a quantum moral leap into hell? It becomes illegal for this administration to not pursue war crimes proceedings.
It turns out water boarding is just modern day witch dunking after all. I feel sick.
May 14, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it amazing that so many of us...even skeptical and outraged lefties....did not discern the true direction and intent of the torture?
It never crossed my mind we were doing it to elicit false confessions to feed future wrongdoing....I always assumed it was to try to trace the pedigree of the 911 plot and to find the higher-ups and to foil future attacks and uncover any existing plans. I also thought it was highly likely that our Mentally Stunted ReFoolAgin brethren like any chance to beat up on a helpless person, and take out their inadequacies on those less fortunate.
Still, with all of history pointing to the true reason torture is usually used, I missed this. Seemingly, along with most other folks.
May 14, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! TomH, I'm in complete agreement. Someone needs to pound on this, it should be easy to find out when it was started & apparently ended, It seems that would prove the real reason was to extract false information. Unfortunately people being ask hold the republican point of view almost two to one. We should all feel sick, as well as frustrated, and mad as hell.
May 14, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be interesting to transpose this timeline on top of the timeline that started with Joe Wilson being sent by the CIA to Nigeria to determine if Iraqis had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa
May 14, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: What authority did Cheney have to order or direct torture anyway? It sounds more and more like he was in the driver's seat on this, ordering the torture... But on what constitutional authority? He is not the President and the constitution does not speak of a "vice-commander in chief," the torture memos only refer to the President's authority (not the vice-president's). So, if a CIA contractor waterboarded someone at the request of Cheney's office, then isn't that illegal regardless of the memos because on the president, not the vice president, can order these things as commander in chief?
May 14, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe look into his role in the Principals Committee...
May 14, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
After Sunday's interview with Bob Schieffer there's not muchg doubt who was really in charge. Many have always believed Bush was nothing more than a puppet from the very beginning.
May 14, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Administration gets to hire and fire at will. With that power in hand, Cheney's man Addington was delivering his commands to CIA, Pentagon, State and Justice, as I recall, and was a very, very busy man.
Also, based on testimony yesterday from Ali Soufan, one of the original interrogators, it was the private contractors brought in by the CIA who took over with torture when the conventional (and productive) methods did not bear the kind of fruit Cheney wanted. There's a reason both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were so heavily "privatized." Let's not forget who the contractors were, and that Cheney made sure they were guaranteed to get those contracts through unprecedented use of a no-bid process.
May 14, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "The Truth About Richard Bruce Cheney"
MY COMMENT: That's our "Pricky Dick" Cheney!
May 14, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And perhaps the reason we haven't been attacked since 911 is the fact that "the terrorists" have plenty of people to kill right over there so they don't have to come here.
We gave them 200,000 troops as shooting and IED targets
May 14, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've had a significant military presence "over there" for decades. Seems like they came here anyway, no?
May 14, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
a couple facts to keep in mind:
foreign deployment of US troops DOUBLED after september 11. (and almost all of that increase went to the middle east and south asia which in terms of proximity - which is what we are talking about - are much more relevant than deployments in germany and south korea)
and there is a big difference between peace time deployments and active combat deployments in terms of opportunities for engagement/targetting.
but the bottom line is that the problem with the so-called 'flypaper' theory isn't that there isn't some truth to it. the problem is that it is an invalid and reprehensible justification for deploying troops. it's a reason NOT to deploy troops.
but if anyone actually read wilkerson's point on troop deployments presenting easier targets it was as an additional fact and a regrettable fact at that. it was not the main thrust of his argument that troop deployments - and not torture - were primarily responsible for there having been no more al'qaida attacks on US soil since september 11.
and while i would argue that since prior to september 11 al'qaida wasn't carrying out attacks on US soil with a frequency greater than every eight years, the fact that they didn't carry out another attack on US soil in the eight years since september 11 is evidence of exactly NOTHING, the truth is that while a majority of what we've done in iraq and afghanistan has been a counterproductive misadventure (to put it mildly) there is significant evidence that our troops have indeed succeeded in disrupting al'qaida's operational capacity. wilkerson might overstate how much that disruption is responsible for the 'prevention' (thus far) of another al'qaida attack on US soil, but everyone here seems to be picking a fight with what they imagine wilkerson believes rather than what wilkerson actually says.
May 15, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
foreign deployment of US troops DOUBLED after september
True, but we're talking about proximity and not numbers.
Wilkerson implied that terrorists will always pick the closest target when he stated that we don't have to fight them in Iowa because "Iraq is closer than Iowa."
But if that were the case, why did they choose to attack New York over the hundreds if not thousands of US troops in Saudi Arabia in 2001? They wouldn't even have needed passports! Instead, they chose to travel overseas, from which we can logically conclude that proximity is not a prime factor in their targeting decisions.
Wilkerson's rebuttal is that "[Saudi] bases are better protected." The clear implication is that terrorists avoid attacking embedded military positions, even if they are "closer."
If proximity is not a prime factor in their targeting decisions, and they avoid attacking embedded military positions, how can increasing the number of embedded military positions in the region possibly be preventing an attack on the homeland? The obvious answer is that it can't, because the only way this makes sense is if embedded military positions in Iraq and Afghanistan are LESS protected than Iowa.
The theory of terrorists voluntarily choosing to exclusively attack combat-deployed soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because its "closer" literally makes no sense if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion.
If you aren't willing to follow your argument to its logical conclusion (Wilkerson "i actually didn't make an argument") then whats the point of posting it at all?
everyone here seems to be picking a fight with what they imagine wilkerson believes rather than what wilkerson actually says.
Actually, I have only been directly responding to the content of Wilkerson's replies to my posts. How other people deal with him is their business.
And, moving on to your argument (feel free to deny its actually an argument, if you want):
there is significant evidence that our troops have indeed succeeded in disrupting al'qaida's operational capacity
Really? Evidence such as what? Haven't there allegedly been attemps on our homeland, generally foiled by the CIA, occurring regularly throughout the peak troop presence? What about 7/7 and Madrid?
May 15, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MO of Islamic Fundamentalists is to strike in a manner that is unpredictable and effective and very public. They attacked embassies and other symbols of American power. They bombed the WTC in 1993. Killed 299 Marines in 1983 in Beirut. They have kidnapped and killed numerous civilians over the years since we started meddling in their affairs.
The relative number of American troops in Saudi Arabia is irrelevant. In fact, the Saudi homeland is considered sacred to Muslims, so it is hardly a surprise they commit violent acts against Americans elsewhere. Probably why the bulk of our troops in the middle east have been in Bahrain all these years.
The geopolitical context you use in framing your argument doesn't actually exist.
May 16, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: I actually said that Iraq is closer than Iowa, not Colonel Wilkerson. Glad I could coin a phrase though. Kind of catchy don't you think?
May 16, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does the revelation that people were tortured to uncover a connection between Al Qa'ida and Iraq mean that the Cheney administration sincerely believed there was a connection or was the operation just one of many ways to sell the idea knowing that the story was false?
May 14, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot claim to live by the rule of law.
You just either do, or you don't.
Obama needs to let the Justice Department start investigation for indictment. It really begins with a conspiracy to produce false "intelligence" to "justify" an act of war. Office of Special Plans. Niger Forgery. Outing of Plame, etc.
Cheney was ordering torture before they also ordered up phony "legal opinions" that they were entitled to torture up to, but not including death.
I am really sick of hearing about the "context" of what "pressure" they were under. What is pretty clear is that their whole program of lying us into war was putting a lot of pressure on them to come up with "evidence". They weren't looking for the ticking time bomb.
It's about the rule of law.
May 15, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOBODY HAS SUMMARIZED IT BETTER!
Thank you rlogan!
May 15, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Has anyone figured out . . .
. . . who it was that "kicked sand in the umpires eyes" yet?
~OGD~
May 15, 2009 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for being on republican not afraid to go on the record and tell the truth about toture and Cheney.
I want to share that we here had renamed him Blunderdick because of the fact that he never served in the military and some felt he was unworthy of the status and power associated with 'darth'. I personally feel that he is a pathologically fearful sociopath so I will refer to him just as 'the sick Cheney'.
I have written before that we all have to look at what we did or didn't do that allowed men like GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and Libby in power and in charge 'unchecked'. There must be accountability all of he way up and down the chain of command.
I appreciate your adding the weight of your voice in bringing some truth to light.
May 15, 2009 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the argument that we have not been hit again, that means the Bush / Cheney policies have worked. The country got hit under the Bush / Cheney policies (and the Clinton policies, for that matter). It was Jimmy Carter's policies that were apparently perfect in protecting the homeland.
May 15, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad we can agree that the relative number of troops and their proximity to jihadists is irrelevant when it comes to when and where they attack, since their MO is to "strike in a manner that is unpredictable" rather than simply picking the closest, easiest target. This discussion would have been much shorter if you'd clarified that in your first response to me. PS sorry for the mis-attribution, its a side-effect of TPM's lack of nesting comment functionality resulting in inefficiently formatted discussion threads.
May 16, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to the Post by jason everett miller
May 16, 2009 8:50 AM
May 16, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that isn't what I said.
All things being equal, I suspect they will use their resources in a way that increase their chances of success. Continuing to kill American troops in the middle east keeps their jihad at full-tilt. Attacking a United States city is most likely secondary at this point because all that would do is unite the world against their agenda, once again.
As long as we are doing their job for them by staying in the middle east, I suspect they will continue to operate in that target-rich environment.
May 16, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is safe to say that every American that was killed after "Mission Accomplished" was announced can be counted as killed by a terrorist.
Or am I mistaken?
May 17, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Republican Party is no longer "Republican" than why do people like Wilkerson stay? Start a new Party that reflects your values and returns to the roots that you believe in. What Wilkerson describes is like staying in a marriage after you find out your mate is a serial felon. At what point does your intellect and self respect kick in and you get out? The remaining GOP fringe will soon be reduced to racist Southerners, Militia hermits living in wooded compounds and the nuttiest fundamentalist fringe of Biblical literists lead by some cultish preacher.
May 18, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Find more truth about Dick Cheney!!!
May 18, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have your sons: CIA
March 10 2003
By Olga Craig
Kuwait
Two young sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, are being used by the CIA to force their father to talk.
Yousef al-Khalid, 9, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, 7, were taken into custody in Pakistan in September when intelligence officers raided a flat in Karachi where their father had been hiding.
Mohammed fled just hours before the raid but his sons and another senior al-Qaeda member were found cowering behind a wardrobe in the apartment.
The boys have been held by the Pakistani authorities but this weekend they were flown to America where they will be questioned about their father. CIA interrogators confirmed that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father's activities. "We are handling them with kid gloves," said one official. "After all, they are only little children, but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times and they are given the best of care."
=============================
Bush Memos Parallel Claim Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s Children Were Tortured With Insects
April 18th, 2009
bushwalkingfrompodiumaa
By John Byrne~Raw Story
Bush Administration memos released by the White House on Thursday provide new insight into claims that American agents used insects to torture the young children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
In the memos, released Thursday, the Bush Administration White House Office of Legal Counsel offered its endorsement of CIA torture methods that involved placing an insect in a cramped, confined box with detainees. Jay S. Bybee, then-director of the OLC, wrote that insects could be used to capitalize on detainees’ fears.
The memo was dated Aug. 1, 2002. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s children were captured and held in Pakistan the following month, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.
While an additional memo released Thursday claims that the torture with insects technique was never utilized by the CIA, the allegations regarding the children would have transpired when the method was authorized by the Bush Administration.
At a military tribunal in 2007, the father of a Guantanamo detainee alleged that Pakistani guards had confessed that American interrogators used ants to coerce the children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into revealing their father’s whereabouts.
The statement was made by Ali Khan, the father of detainee Majid Khan, who gave a detailed account of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American guards in Pakistan. In his statement, Khan asserted that one of his sons was held at the same place as the young children of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
“The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs and were denied food and water by other guards,” the statement read. “They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.” (A pdf transcript is available here)
Khan’s statement is second-hand. But the picture he paints of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American interrogators is strikingly similar to the accounts given by numerous other detainees to the International Red Cross. The timing of the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s son — then aged seven and nine — also meshes with a report by Human Rights Watch, which says that the children were captured in September 2002 and held for four months at the hands of American guards.
“According to eyewitnesses, the two were held in an adult detention center for at least four months while U.S. agents questioned the children about their father’s whereabouts,” the report said.
The use of insects isn’t mentioned in a recently leaked International Red Cross report, in which Red Cross officials questioned detainees about their treatment at the hands of US forces and ultimately judged them to have been tortured. A second memo released Thursday, dated May 10, 2005, says the CIA told the White House insects were never actually used in interrogations.
“We understand that — for reasons unrelated to any concerns that it might violate the [criminal] statute — the CIA never used the technique and has removed it from the list of authorized interrogation techniques,” Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a footnote.
May 20, 2009 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
He and Rush Limbaugh seem to be its leaders now. Lindsay Graham, John McCain, John Boehner, and all other Republicans have chosen Cost for Transporting Cars to get all their cars transported which has always been a big lift of their shoulders. Of note seem to be either so enamored of Cheney-Limbaugh or, on another note, so appalled by them, that the cat has their tongues. And while few Americans identify as Republicans than at any time since WWII.
June 25, 2010 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
videotape from the last few days of former Vice President Dick Cheney extolling the virtues of harsh interrogation, torture, and his leadership. I had heard some of it earlier of course but not all of it and not in such a tightly-packed package.
clutch bag supplier
August 11, 2010 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Favorite post having such an fantastic and useful informative content.describing good blogging concepts as well as basics that are very much useful in skilled content writing as well.
seo consultant
December 3, 2010 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that when will someone of stature tell Dick Cheney that enough is enough? Go home. Spend your 70 million. Luxuriate in your Eastern Shore mansion. Shoot quail with your friends--and your friends.
Sofia by
Microsoft Iscsi Software
December 22, 2010 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marvelous !! What an amazing content....subject is very good. Such a beneficial information you have provided that proves it as a golden summary about the topic...thanks.
Play Bingo
January 22, 2011 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your post will be rather good, and I’m sure some will find it interesting because it’s about a topic that’s as widely discussed as others. Some may even find it useful.Thanks so much for your post.
Online Bingo
January 24, 2011 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo
I never found such a great and amazing content and fabulous solution to my problem.......really giving a different idea in applying ideas in planning a systematic way. thank you !
January 25, 2011 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deal or no Deal
These facts are amazing .I was searching before last 5 weeks and i dint get the perfect answer.But after all i found from your site.thanks for posting such a interesting topic.
January 25, 2011 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lottery Results
This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
January 25, 2011 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
richard had the pleasure of listening to Colonel Wilkerson a few nights ago on television. After hearing what he had to say I wanted very much to know more about what his viewpoint so I searched specifically for this post and it was an excellent read. I excerpted a portion here and hope you want to read it in its entirety.advokat oslo
January 28, 2011 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap Mens Shoes
An invaluable resource and great addition to my favorites. The new features are well received on this end and will surely help the community share and progress more rapidly.
January 31, 2011 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
reverse phone number lookup
I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them. To me, you are doing the great work.
February 1, 2011 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome collection! I like pretty much all of them, thanks for sharing nyårsafton
February 9, 2011 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please let us begin to understand the nature of being of these entities called “Bush” and “Cheney” and many others. Our survival as beings who can truthfully refer to themselves as human is at stake, for these psychopaths have a much different view of reality they would like us to live by.Car Storage
February 9, 2011 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very intriguing post, I was looking for this knowledge. Just so you know I found your web site when I was searching for blogs like mine, so please check out my site sometime and leave me a comment to let me know what you think.
DealtoWorld.com
February 9, 2011 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all that we've lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings. And when the moral reckoning turns to the men known as high-value terrorists, I can assure you they were neither innocent nor victims. As for those who asked them questions and got answers: they did the right thing, they made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.Travel to Istanbul with Veni Vidi Travel
February 14, 2011 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I’m so happy I stumble upon this blog! A lot of helpful info I really needed to know these stuff, I had a hard time with those foreign characters. Thank you so much.
SPSS Help
February 18, 2011 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dissertation Editing Services
Another very solid tutorial. Thank you. Not something I can use right now but I bookmarked for the future.
February 18, 2011 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! I'm just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well - resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it's all a bit new to us.
business cards
February 22, 2011 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of those methods that requires a lot of patience and discipline, but will really pay off in the long run. Good luck to you all! mrsa
February 24, 2011 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found this is an informative and interesting post so i think so it is very useful and ... I ...
side i turkiet
February 28, 2011 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Backlinkbooster
This was really helpful. Thank you for posting this! I am wondering why they made the program so hard to use if it requires that much work?
March 15, 2011 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Each and every post is excellant in this site . so i will regularly visiit to this blog.thanks for all the team of this site..
flyg köpenhamn
March 17, 2011 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
More inane quacking from the Can't Take A Contrary Opinion Choir. Run along, duck. You clearly don't have enough imagination to participate in this discussion. Javahostindo Web Hosting Indonesia Harga Jual Blackberry iPhone Laptop Murah
March 17, 2011 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for sharing..Essay Writing
Coursework Writing
March 18, 2011 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing and keep up the good work..
Assignment Writing | Dissertation Writing
March 18, 2011 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is extremely helpful for me.
Thesis Writing
March 18, 2011 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You helped me a lot indeed and reading this your article I have found many new and useful information about this subject. the diet solution
March 26, 2011 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses taking time and real effort to make a good article !!
Buy Backlinks
March 27, 2011 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for taking the time to talk about this, I feel fervently about it and I enjoy learning about this topic. Please, as you gain data, please add to this blog with more information. I have found it extremely useful. w9 poker
March 29, 2011 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is very encouraging to go through the post for it contains information about these interesting feature. It is a useful tutorial. East Midlands Airport Parking
April 1, 2011 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Companies these days are using ergonomic furniture to ensure that there are no injuries from work related hazards. Use an ergonomic chair and feel better comfort in your back and shoulder. interior doors
April 5, 2011 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Companies these days are using ergonomic furniture to ensure that there are no injuries from work related hazards. Use an ergonomic chair and feel better comfort in your back and shoulder. get ex wife back
April 5, 2011 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A perfect info source for souvenirs from Vienna Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. bristol greenhouse supplier
April 6, 2011 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I first read your article I did not really understand why it might be important. But as I think about it all it becomes very clear to me and I understand that you are right. nursing dress
April 7, 2011 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
spent some time browsing forums about hacking android,.. and now I know, that it won't run on mips Data Safes
April 12, 2011 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
spent some time browsing forums about hacking android,.. and now I know, that it won't run on mips DIY
April 12, 2011 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really A great article to read I must say that you are good as your work send flowers online uk | mothers day flowers delivery France
April 13, 2011 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post creates great impression into my mind, the explanation, content quality, purpose are very good and very much helpful.
business softwares
April 15, 2011 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really liked the post and great tips..even I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success keep it up :)
Prisvärda hotell
April 16, 2011 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: lean to's for sale
April 16, 2011 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you so much for your work on keeping the site together and keeping these flowing.
Backlinks Combo Deals
April 19, 2011 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great piece of collection.Truly it's very difficult to choose the best out of all because these are the topmost I have seen so far.
Collagen
April 19, 2011 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are four difficulty levels and a good deal of customizable options that allow you to dress up (or down) your rock star avatar, and the game allows you play both bass and guitar. internal doors
April 20, 2011 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beneficial information ..I am very happy to read this article..thank you for giving us this handy information. Fantastic walk-through. I value this post.
Billig resa
April 21, 2011 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are four difficulty levels and a good deal of customizable options that allow you to dress up (or down) your rock star avatar ALL ABOUT TOYOTA
April 24, 2011 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them. To me, you are doing the great work.
Buy High PR Backlinks
April 24, 2011 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are four difficulty levels and a good deal of customizable options that allow you to dress up (or down) your rock star avatar, and the game allows you play both bass and guitar. put/call data
April 24, 2011 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you! it was a wonderful chance to visit this kind of site and I am happy to know. thank you so much for giving us a chance to have this opportunity!
wizard of oz books
snow cone syrup
April 24, 2011 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a hard time with those foreign characters. Thank you so much. RAN แรน
April 26, 2011 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. I want to thank you for this informative read, I really appreciate sharing this great post. Keep up your work.
texas convention center
April 28, 2011 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really appreciate this wonderful post that you have provided for us.Great site and a great topic as well i really get amazed to read this. farmville secrets
May 3, 2011 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The waters have been sufficiently muddied at this point, but just to have the last word let me remind you that our military bases throughout the Middle East have always been "closer" than the Towers.
casino en ligne
May 4, 2011 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink