WEDNESDAY,  AUGUST 26,  2009

OUR ALLY AND VERY CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND - AT 7:36 P.M. ET:  Can you believe this guy?  This is one of those people often described, by those with financial interests, as a friend of the United States.  Yeah, right.  From Australia's Sydney Morning Herald:

WASHINGTON: Saudi Arabia's former ambassador to the US, Prince Turki al-Faisal, has criticised the Obama Administration for promoting energy independence, calling the campaign to curb oil consumption an affront to the kingdom.

''This 'energy independence' motto is political posturing at its worst - a concept that is unrealistic, misguided, and ultimately harmful to energy producing and consuming countries alike,'' the prince wrote in an article published on Foreign Policy magazine's website.

Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and a former director of Saudi intelligence and ambassador to Britain, called energy independence ''little more than code for arguing that the United States has a dangerous reliance'' on Saudi Arabia. The kingdom, the largest oil exporter, ''gets blamed for everything from global terrorism to high gasoline prices'', he said.

COMMENT:  Look, your highness, or oilness, or whatever it is - your religious schools produced a whole generation of extremists.  Most of the 9-11 murderers came from your country.  Your rollicking royal family was the guiding force behind the oil shocks of the 1970s.  You won't allow Christians or Jews to practice their religion on your soil.  Your kingdom is the major power in OPEC.  Understand why your photo isn't on the wall of every American household?

But don't sweat.  You have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.  You have former American diplomats on your payroll.  You own whole departments of Middle East studies in American universities.  Jimmy Carter adores you.  You'll get by.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

ANOTHER POLL STUNNER - AT 6:10 P.M. ET:  Gallup today has more bad news for the president, and states it rather bluntly:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's latest job approval rating is 51%, according to Aug. 23-25 Gallup Daily tracking. Should his rating continue its downward trend and fall below 50%, he would -- like most post-World War II presidents -- have less-than-majority approval at some point in his presidency. However, Obama, in his eighth month in office, could hit this mark in a shorter time than has typically been the case. If his rating falls below 50% before November, it would represent the third-fastest drop to below majority approval since World War II, behind the declines for Gerald Ford (in his third month as president) and Bill Clinton (in his fourth month).

Gallup has Obama's disapproval rating at 44%.  But there's a cautionary note here:

However, falling below 50% would hardly mark a point of no return for Obama. All presidents went back above the 50% mark after their initial loss of majority public support. And Clinton and Reagan, who dropped below majority approval faster than most other presidents, easily won second terms in the subsequent election.

COMMENT:  And that's the point.  You can't beat somebody with nobody, and with nothing.  Elections are about choices, with no prize for second place.  Even candidates with approval ratings below 50% have won. 

We have continued work to do.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

INCREDIBLE - AT 3:48 P.M. ET:  The Lockerbie bomber was released by Scotland last week on "compassionate" grounds, because he had, according to Scottish authorities, only three months to live. 

Now there are doubts about that.  From The Scotsman:

JUSTICE secretary Kenny MacAskill was last night under pressure to reveal more details of the medical evidence that led to the release of the Lockerbie bomber, after it emerged that only one doctor was willing to say Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had less than three months to live.

Labour and Conservative politicians have demanded the Scottish Government publish details of the doctor's expertise and qualifications, amid suggestions he or she may not have been a prostate cancer expert.

The parties have also raised questions over whether the doctor was employed by the Libyan government or Megrahi's legal team, which could have influenced the judgment.

And...

Mr MacAskill has said he based his decision to release Megrahi on the opinions of a range of experts.

But this is contradicted by a decisive report sent to Mr MacAskill on 10 August.

While it noted that four prostate cancer specialists – two oncologists and two urologists – were consulted, the summary said: "Whether or not prognosis is more or less than three months, no specialist would be willing to say."

The report suggests that only one doctor was willing to support the claim that Megrahi had just weeks to live.

COMMENT:  This is a major scandal, but must be pursued, either by political figures or by the British press.  The Obama administration seems to have dropped the subject after some perfunctory expressions of "outrage."  Let's not say anything that could be "misinterpreted" in the Muslim world.

By the way, it would not be above Libyan authorities to hold a mock funeral for this guy in two months, claim he's dead, then spirit him away somewhere.  Faking deaths, as we've seen regularly in Arab culture, is a routine technique.  The so-called "Jenin massacre," on the West Bank, was proved to be a fraud.  The incident that fueled the second Palestinian "intifada," in which a young boy was allegedly shot by Israeli authorities, while cradled in his father's arms, was also proved to be a fraud, in a French court of law.  During Israel's 2006 war in Lebanon, Arab "casualties" suddenly got up and walked away. 

Will Britain, in its greed for Libyan contracts, be the next victim of a hoax?

We'll follow this story.  Grieving American families, relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103, which went down in Lockerbie, are involved.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

THE OPPORTUNITY - AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  The latest Rasmussen poll of generic preferences shows the continuing opportunity available to the GOP in the upcoming congressional elections:

This summer brought a significant shift in voter preferences in the Generic Congressional Ballot. As Republican Congressional candidates once again lead Democrats by a 43% to 38% margin this week, this is now the ninth straight ballot the GOP has held a modest advantage.

Over the past nine weeks, Republicans have held a two-to-five point advantage over Democrats every week. It is important to note, however, that the recent shift is not only because Republicans have been gaining support, but that Democrats have slipped in support. While support for Republican candidates ranged from 41% to 43%, support for Democrats ranged from 37% to 39%. 

And...

Looking back one year ago, support was strikingly different for the parties. Throughout the summer of 2008, support for Democratic congressional candidates ranged from 45% to 48%. Republican support ranged from 34% to 37%.

COMMENT:  It's an opportunity, and only that.  Republicans must exploit it, and, critically important, learn to speak over the heads of the media directly to the American people.  That was one of Reagan's gifts, and it helped propel him to the White House.

The Obamans ran a brilliant campaign last year.  They can do it again.  Nothing is in the bag.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

WHA?  READ THIS WITH TWO EYES - AT 9:24 A.M. ET:  There are reports all over the internet this morning about a possible "breakthrough" (the 458th) in the Arab-Israeli peace process.  Fox News reports:

President Obama is on the brink of a breakthrough deal that would allow him to announce the resumption of long-stalled Middle East talks, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported, citing unnamed officials.

According to the paper, U.S., Israeli, Palestinian and European sources close to the discussions have said the announcement of resumed peace talks would come within a month.

Key to the deal is a U.S. promise to take a harder line with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, the Guardian said. The U.S., along with Britain and France are planning to push the U.N. Security Council into expanding sanctions to include Iran's oil and gas industry, which would cripple the nation's economy, the newspaper reported.

The Israeli government, in return, would be expected to impose a partial freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank.

COMMENT:  In the immortal words of that great philosopher, George Gobel, wait a gosh-darned second.  So, the way it appears, the U.S. "promises" to take a harder line on Iran "in return" for Israeli concessions on settlements.

Do I have that right?

Israel had to, basically, force the U.S. to take a harder line on Iran?  Isn't a harder line, and possibly more, in the American national interest?   Do these parlor-party "intellectuals" around Obama really believe that America isn't Iran's ultimate target? 

If this story is true, and it appears to be well sourced, it says something awful about American foreign policy under this head-in-the-sand administration.  It says that the only time we'll take a truly realistic stand against our adversaries is if someone forces us to do it.

Of course, it's possible that the Obamans just can't find the time to take hard action against Iran, so busy are they investigating our intelligence people.  You know, there are priorities, dearie.

This story follows a number of notes in the media expressing a growing cynicism about Obama's foreign policy.  We will watch carefully.  We share the cynicism.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

OUTRAGE GROWING OVER CIA PROBE - AT 8:53 A.M. ET:  It took only a day or two to get started, but we sense a growing outrage over Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to resurrect ancient investigations into CIA treatment of terror detainees early in the Bush administration.  American soldiers are in the field, CIA agents are on the front line, rogue regimes are growing increasingly defiant, and Americans are investigating themselves.  Sounds like a grade C Hollywood comedy. 

Victoria Toensing, a conservative Washington lawyer who's worked on terrorism issues in the executive and legislative branches, has some tough words for this administration in NRO Online.  She writes of the interrogators who stepped forward to help this country in the harrowing days after the September, 2001, attacks, and are now under scrutiny and threat:

Even though an earlier investigation by career prosecutors reviewed the same conduct and refused prosecution of all but one contract employee who was brought to trial in 2007. Even though congressional leaders had knowledge of the interrogation techniques and made no attempt to stop them. Even though the conduct is more than six years old. Even though the CIA has taken administrative action against some of the personnel involved in the interrogations. Even though being just a target of a criminal investigation costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. Even though being just a target of a criminal investigation takes a horrendous mental toll. Even though the morale of the CIA will plunge to the depths it did in the wake of the Church Committee attacks. Even though the release of the names of those being scrutinized will make them terrorist targets for the rest of their lives. Even if they are cleared.

COMMENT:  But the people behind this new series of investigations don't care.  They represent the left wing of the Democratic Party.  Harry Truman threw their kind out of the party in 1948, and they then rallied around Henry Wallace, an otherwise decent man who was naive enough to crawl into bed with genuine, certified reds.  (He later distanced himself from them.)  Their ideological comrades came back in the sixties and seventies, and have had an inordinate influence in the party ever since. 

The fault lays squarely with Barack Obama.  He could stop these reckless and damaging probes, which are likely to shatter the morale of our intelligence services, and at least damage the morale even of our armed forces.  But the fact is that he doesn't really want to.  Barack Obama likes this sort of thing.  It represents who he really is...and the American people are finding out.

August 26, 2009   Permalink

KENNEDY'S SUCCESSOR - AT 8:07 A.M. ET:  The body is still warm, but speculation has already begun about Ted Kennedy's successor.  Virtually all the talk centers on Democrats.  As usual, the Republican Party doesn't have any candidates who have a reputation beyond the local ice-cream shop.  Yes, there's Mitt Romney, who was governor, but he has his eyes on the White House, and a Senate run would be seen as cynical.

Under Massachusetts law, a special election must be held.  Before his death, Kennedy recommended that the law be changed, allowing the governor to make an interim appointment.  (The gov, Deval Patrick, is a Democrat.)  That has not been done, but could be.  It would, however, go down badly with a major chunk of the public, which would see it as simply a Democratic Party maneuver.

Some speculation centers on other Kennedys.  Again, I wonder if there's enough political juice for this dynasty to continue.  There are no Massachusetts Kennedys left with real stature, and sending in a cousin may not work this time.  Other speculation surrounds the ultra-liberal Democratic congressional delegation.  And, of course, the governor can run.  He is African-American, a friend of Barack Obama's.  Hard to know how that will play.

Chances are, bottom line, that we will have another liberal from Massachusetts.

August 26, 2009   Permalink 

THE DEATH OF TED KENNEDY - AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  Ted Kennedy has died.  Like many in my generation, my early interest in politics paralleled the rise of the Kennedys in American political life.  I recall when Ted Kennedy first ran for the Senate, propelled entirely by his family name, and the outrage many felt at his sense of entitlement.  I recall when he was presiding over the Senate when the news of President Kennedy's assassination came through.

His legacy, as an honest obituary in today's New York Times points out, is mixed.  On the one hand, he started as a privileged lightweight with no qualifications, his legacy and future marred by Chappaquiddick in 1969, when a car he was driving ran off a bridge, killing one of his female assistants.  His failure to come to her aid as the car went down forever tainted Kennedy's reputation.

On the other hand, give the man his due.  By testimony across party lines, he developed into a respected senator who could work with legislators of all points of view.  He must be praised for championing the least among us, something men of his class don't often do.  We can disagree with his prescriptions, but his concern for those at the bottom always struck me as genuine. 

It seemed odd to me that Kennedy didn't show more interest in foreign policy, a departure from his family's tradition. 

Over the years, some have said that Ted Kennedy was the best of the Kennedy brothers, the one with the largest heart and deepest commitment.  It's hard to say.  He died at 77.  His brothers died young.  No one knows how they would have evolved.  One of my revered mentors, Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois, once described Jack Kennedy to me as "brilliant but cold," which I think applies.  No one ever called Ted brilliant, but he seemed to have a warmth that the other Kennedys lacked.

There will be a series of tributes.  Some will be tasteful, others not.  Some will be self-serving.  A few buildings and institutions will undoubtedly be named for Ted Kennedy, and appropriately so. 

There will, also, probably be an attempt to get health care "reform" passed as a living tribute to Kennedy, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the bill renamed for him - something like "The Edward M. Kennedy Universal Coverage Health Bill."  That won't have much effect.  Historically, Americans are perfectly prepared to name some concrete for a major figure who's passed on.  But they're not willing automatically to accept that individual's policies. 

President Obama will make the most of Kennedy's death.  That's the way it works in politics.  But, after a few weeks, the old debates will rage again, with little change.

August 26, 2009   Permalink 

TUESDAY,  AUGUST 25,  2009

AND IT STARTS TO COME OUT - AT 9:22 P.M. ET:  It didn't take long, following the release to Libya of the Lockerbie bomber, for the financial details to start surfacing:

LIBYA is preparing to invest millions of dollars into London's property market in the latest sign of burgeoning business links between the two countries.

The Libyan Investment Authority, which manages the country's sovereign oil wealth of $US65 billion ($77 billion), has recently bought two buildings worth a combined £275 million ($540 million) and instructed real estate advisers to look for more.

Revelations of these business links come as pressure mounts on the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who has been warned that his ''deafening silence'' over the release of the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing is harming Britain.

And...

Existing British investments in Libya have raised questions about whether business interests are dictating the pace of diplomatic detente.

COMMENT:  What really angers me is not only the pretty clear influence of money on the decision to release the Lockerbie murderer, but the fact that many of the people involved in this travesty lecture Americans for being too "materialistic."  Americans are gems compared to some of these self-interested grovelers.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

THE RETURN OF RUDY - AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  Rudy Giuliani may run for governor of New York next year.  If he runs and wins, he'd automatically be in position for another shot at the presidency, either in 2012 0r 2016.  From CBS:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani may be considering a run for governor in 2010, according to various reports, and could come to a decision on the matter within weeks.

The former 2008 Republican presidential candidate could decide to run in as soon as the next 30 to 60 days, the New York Times reports, if he concludes that public discontent with state government and economic unrest have created the right conditions.

The problem is that Rudy is not as popular in New York as people elsewhere think.  He was one of New York City's great mayors, but getting things done meant offending legions of special interests and minority-group leaders who felt they weren't shown proper deference. 

According to recent polls, Giuliani would have a good chance of beating Democratic Gov. David Paterson but would have a harder time against potential Democratic candidate Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who has not announced if he plans to run against Paterson in a primary. The Siena Research Institute found 55 percent of registered voters polled this month had an unfavorable opinion of Paterson, Newsday reported. Giuliani would beat Paterson in a general election match-up by 56 percent to 33 percent, according to the poll, while Cuomo would beat Giuliani, 53 percent to 40 percent.

COMMENT:  New York is a Democratic state.  Chances are, Cuomo will beat the incumbent governor for the gubernatorial nomination.  It's uphill for Rudy.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

THE BOILING ISSUE - AT 6:06 P.M. ET:  President Obama said he wanted to look forward on CIA operations, not look back.  But he's refused to block the investigation of past CIA practices announced by Attorney General Holder yesterday.  Maybe the president thinks this lets him escape responsibility.  "Hey, I didn't do it, Eric Holder did it."  But the attorney general reports to the president, and Obama could have stopped this "investigation" at any time, or made it a classified matter.  He did not.

Already the news of the Justice Department probe, which will be run by one of the most left-wing justice departments we've ever had, is dividing Washington.  It will also divide the nation, but I suspect Obama will come out on the short end.  Rich Lowry has some good insight into what's happened:

PITY Leon Panetta. The CIA director counseled the Obama administration against releasing classified interrogation memos from the Bush years. And got ignored...

...Such is life at Langley under an administration betraying liberalism's typical contempt for covert action and its inevitable moral complications.

No wonder ABC News is reporting that Panetta recently uncorked a profanity-laced tirade about the Justice Department at the White House and is contemplating quitting. (The CIA denies it.)

And...

Panetta has had to write another letter to CIA employees meant to keep their morale up. For those keeping count, it's his sixth.

No matter how many missives he writes earnestly committing himself and his agency to looking ahead, the rest of his administration and party drags him back into the past.

As far as they are concerned, he's merely a front man for Bush-era criminality.

And that's the point.  There's a whole bloc within the Democratic Party that doesn't even believe in national defense, let alone the war on terror.  To them, it's Bush's (!!) war, and nothing else.  Many of these people are "anti-war" activists.  Translated into plain English, that means they're against any war America has a chance of winning.

...what possible public interest can be served in reopening murkier cases years after the fact, when the CIA already took internal action and career prosecutors already examined them?

The next time CIA officers are told that they have to be more aggressive in protecting their country, they could be forgiven for saying "no thanks."

The same thing happened in the 1970s - a Democratic Party war against the CIA, which almost destroyed the agency.  To the party-line left, this is perfectly okay. 

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we struggled to get the balance right between our safety and our values as an open, liberal society. It'd be nice to pretend otherwise, but there is indeed such a balance.

As the IG report makes clear, the interrogations rendered important intelligence about other terrorists and other plots.

"Whether this was the only way to obtain that information will remain a legitimate area of dispute," Panetta writes in his latest letter.

That dispute rightly belongs in the political arena, not the courts. But who wants to listen to the CIA director, a shill for torturers almost by definition?

COMMENT:  Panetta is a Democrat, although a reasonable one.  That's the problem.  To be reasonable in Obama's Democratic Party, to care about the defense of the nation, is to be looked on with suspicion, to be Liebermaned.  And the president does nothing about it.  Because in his heart he knows the left is right.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

GUIDANCE FOR THE LEFT - AT 3:53 P.M. ET:  Fidel Castro is now, apparently, a commentator on American politics and the fortunes of President Obama.  From AP:

HAVANA–Cuba's Fidel Castro is criticizing President Barack Obama's stepped-up U.S. war in Afghanistan while backing Obama's effort to provide health care coverage for all Americans.

The former Cuban president said in an essay published Tuesday that he hasn't the slightest doubt that "the racist right" will do anything to stop Obama from succeeding domestically.

COMMENT:  You know, Castro is starting to sound like some of the more leftish members of the House.  They say exactly the same thing.  Or...is it that the more leftish members of the House who are starting to sound like Castro?

Well, actually, what's the difference?

August 25, 2009   Permalink

POLL WATCHING - AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports that, for the fourth straight day, Obama is in negative double digits in Ras's presidential approval index.  That measures the gap between those who strongly approve of the president and those who strongly disapprove.  Today it's at minus 11.

Obama's overall approval stands at 49%, disapproval at 51%.

And Gallup reports its measure of the president's approval has him at 52%, with 41% disapproving.

Rasmussen polls among likely voters, Gallup among "national adults."

August 25, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  The backlash against the release of the Lockerbie bomber continues.  It seems to have unleashed pent up resentment, not only toward Western appeasement of terrorists, but toward the Obama administration and its "outreach" to everyone with grudge.  Reader Alan Weick alerts us to this, from Abe Greenwald at Contentions:

Barack Obama has so ably repaired the once frayed ties with our Bush-abused allies that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown couldn’t do us the minute favor of keeping the convicted mass murderer of American citizens from being sprung and delivered into a Libyan hero’s welcome.

Hillary Clinton has been so levelheaded (so nonideological) in her pursuit of improved relations with Libya that Muammar Qaddafi simply had to meet terrorist Abdel Basset al-Megrahi at the airport to hug and kiss him and proclaim his love for both the killer and the British Crown before the world.

This is what all that goodwill and all those apologies have reaped? The unprecedented coupling of our best friend with one of our worst enemies?

And considering that this was all probably orchestrated in the interest of opening up British-Libya oil ties, the old nugget “blood for oil” seems particularly apt.

Hey, the important thing is: no more cowboy diplomacy, right? No more go-it-alone, unilateral, with-us-or-against-us, good-and-evil hooey. That was for simpletons. We’re in the hands of geniuses now.

COMMENT:  And coming soon to a news outlet near you:  the crunch in Afghanistan, the crunch in Iraq, a showdown with North Korea, a showdown with Russia, and the ever-popular Iranian nuclear program.

No doubt the Obamans will handle these problems with the same brilliance they've shown in handling, say, health care.

Better take a sedative.

August 25, 2009   Permalink 

IT GIVES US PAIN, BUT WE MUST DO IT - AT 8:20 A.M. ET:  Praise a New York Times editorial, that is.  There's a political drama developing in Massachusetts that's gotten remarkable little attention, considering the personalities and stakes involved.

Senator Ted Kennedy, as we all know, is critically ill, and of course we wish him well.  However, he is still functioning, and thinking politically.  He's now proposed that, in the event of a Senate vacancy, the current Massachusetts system requiring a special election to fill the seat be dropped, and the governor of the state given the authority to appoint an interim senator.

No way.  Previously, Kennedy was on the other side.  When his Senate colleague from Massachusetts, John Kerry, ran for president in 2004, the governor was a Republican, Mitt Romney.  Kennedy, hoping for Kerry's election, backed a measure to change the system then in place, which allowed a gubernatorial appointment to fill the seat, to a requirement for a special election.  The measure passed the Massachusetts legislature.

Now that the governor is a Democrat, Deval Patrick, Kennedy wants to switch back to the old system.  Even The New York Times realizes how outrageous that is:

Massachusetts governors used to fill Senate vacancies. But in 2004, the Democratic majority in the State Legislature changed the law to require a special election. The leaders were concerned that if Senator John Kerry was elected president, Gov. Mitt Romney would appoint a fellow Republican. To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship in setting the rules for who goes to Congress.

Special elections put the power where it should be in a democracy — with the people. Too many senators today are selected in elections of one, with the governor casting the only vote. New York just went through this in filling Hillary Clinton’s seat, Delaware in filling Joe Biden’s seat, and Illinois in the disastrous process of filling Barack Obama’s seat, which contributed to the impeachment of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

COMMENT:  All right, New York Times Editorial Board, you did good.  But, oh, it's so rare.

Savor the moment.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

THE NERVE, THE ABSOLUTE NERVE - AT 7:50 A.M. ET:  With an approving United States standing by, disgracefully,  the Organization of American States is pressuring Honduras to take back its legally and constitutionally ousted president, despite the fact that the man faces serious charges:

(CNN) -- A delegation of foreign ministers led by the Organization of American States' secretary-general arrived Monday in Honduras in an effort to restore ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya to office.

The delegation represents seven countries, including Canada, Mexico and Argentina. The organization has demanded that Zelaya, who was ousted June 28 in a military-led coup, be allowed to return to Honduras and resume his presidency.

The United Nations and European Union also have condemned the coup and refused to recognize the provisional government led by former congressional leader Roberto Micheletti.

The delegation's visit comes two days after the Honduran Supreme Court said Zelaya would face charges of violating the constitution if he returned to the country. Under an accord suggested by Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, Zelaya would have been allowed to return with diminished powers. But Micheletti had said he could not agree to the pact until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

COMMENT:  What is going on here?  Bad reporting, for one thing.  Zelaya, an ally of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, was not removed in a military coup.  The military did not act until ordered to do so by the country's Supreme Court.

With all the horror going on in the world, the inordinate attention being given to the fate of one Latin American fellow traveler seems odd in the extreme.  I wish as much attention were given to the fact that Fidel and his brother have ruled Cuba for almost half a century without a free election, or to the increasing power grabs by Chavez.  But in the rarefied halls of international diplomacy, that would be oh so rude.

August 25, 2009   Permalink

CHENEY SNAPS BACK - AT 7:42 A.M. ET:  One thing about Dick Cheney - the man stands up for his beliefs, no matter what it costs him.  Now, following yesterday's release of a raft of CIA documents about interrogations of terrorists, the former vice president gives the most articulate, thoughtful reply that I've seen:

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions.

And get this, which deserves to be circulated:

President Obama’s decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration’s ability to be responsible for our nation’s security.

COMMENT:  Absolutely correct.  Add to health care "reform" a growing worry about national security.  Even Scotland, releasing the Lockerbie terrorist, treats this administration with contempt. 

August 25, 2009   Permalink