So Dick Cheney takes to Fox News and reiterates the administration’s longstanding claim that the leaders of Congress knew all about the illegal surveillance and torture programs.
CHENEY: We brought in the chairman and the ranking member, House and Senate, and briefed them [on the warrantless surveillance program] a number of times up until — this was — be from late ‘01 up until ‘04 when there was additional controversy concerning the program.
I presided over the meeting. We briefed them on the program, and what we’d achieved, and how it worked, and asked them, "Should we continue the program?" They were unanimous, Republican and Democrat alike. All agreed — absolutely essential to continue the program.
First, Democratic leaders have repeatedly denied that they knew all there was to know about the surveillance program. In July 2003, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, then the Democratic vice-chairman on the intelligence committee, wrote a letter to Cheney explaining that he didn’t feel like he had sufficient information to conduct appropriate oversight. And it’s hardly surprising that Cheney would misrepresent this stuff, given his cavalier attitude toward the truth.
But still. Glenn Greenwald puts the pressure on Democratic leaders to further explain themselves, and rightly so. If there’s ever a solid argument for an independent commission into the illegal surveillance and torture programs, here it is: the public is owed a thorough accounting of what the administration did; what it told Congress; and what Congress approved.
But still still. Cheney might not be acting in good faith, but he’s nevertheless pointing to something barometrically significant. In Washington, the phrase "bipartisan" is supposed to cash out to something like "legal" or "wise" or "no longer controversial" or "kosher." The Germans probably have a word that’s a more acceptable translation. In any event, that’s self-evidently foolish: lots of people can make mistakes and lots of people can make venal decisions, and it’s not a function of belonging to one political party or the other. Cheney doesn’t get off the hook if Nancy Pelosi is on it with him. Naturally, what I imagine Cheney’s doing is warning the Democrats off creating an independent commission into the abuses of the administration, lest it go after them too, but that’s all the more reason one should be created.
Crossposted to The Streak.
Login Here




8 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
First, Democratic leaders have repeatedly denied that they knew all there was to know about the surveillance program.
Granted Democrats didn’t know everything, but they did know a lot. I believe Glennzilla and others have demonstrated that “Jello” Jay, DiFi, Pelosi and a few others knew a fair amount about the program and never said a peep. And that is one of the probable reasons there has never been any real investigation. Because Democrats are complicit to an extent. Enough to make them look really bad if things ever came to light.
don’t have to believe cheney to disbelieve pelosi et al.
Perhaps we’ve had a bipartisan war-crime spree.
So, here’s a little something to brighten your day:
Or maybe Dick Cheney wanted to throw out a bright shiny object to distract liberals and progressives as well as many other well meaning citizens from the Senate Armed Service committee report on detainee abuse. Maybe he figures if he can stoke enough mistrust and acrimony within the Democratic party nobody will come together long enough to actually investigate and prosecute HIS ass. I am thinking like Ackerman is thinking, that instead of focusing on what Pelosi et all might have done, lets just unite in calling for an independent commission to investigate what ERYBODY did. That way we don’t lose focus and Cheney is held to account. For everyboy else let the chips fall where they may.
Cheney being a war criminal doesn’t necessarily mean that Nancy Pelosi isn’t a war criminal too.
Just sayin’
That was my point entirely. Was it unclear?
we either have .. or can manufacture enough new rope to hang a large lot of criminals ..whether they be war criminlas or just plain old domestic enemies of the constitution .. let the nooses fall where they may .. the [D] or [R] appended to the names of the accused is completely superflous ..
yes we can … the question is ..will we .. ??