Cheney Makes It Difficult for Obama

Since former President of the United States George Bush stepped down, he has gradually faded from the public eye. He has been living in seclusion in his own home, has not spoken publicly, and has not made any irresponsible remarks against the Obama administration. Contrarily, the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, who had been reticent and satisfied with operating quietly behind the scenes, has chosen to openly attack the Obama administration. He has made many public appearances lately, furiously criticizing Obama’s national security policies.

Last Thursday, Cheney once again pitted himself against Obama. Mr. Obama, when delivering a speech addressing the issue of national security for the first time at the National Archives and Records Administration building in Washington, stressed that the U.S. needs to change its methods in order to deal effectively with the threat of terrorism.

Mr. Obama said that the U.S. should counter terrorism, but it must not go against the law. He has thus prohibited the use of torture on terror suspects on this basis and has ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay, as well as ordered an investigation into all of Guantanamo Bay’s pending cases.

After Obama ended his speech, Cheney promptly delivered a blow-for-blow speech from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), in which he defended the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policies and harshly criticized Obama, saying that since he has taken office his methods have been extremely unwise. He suggested Obama’s policies would only put the U.S. in a precarious spot and the lives of Americans in serious jeopardy. Cheney had also said, with marked certainty, that Obama will regret his own policies.

Both speeches were broadcast live on television. Their words were intense and aggressive, and it felt like they were having an in-ring bout across the airwaves.

The theme of Mr. Obama’s speech emphasized a series of rash decisions the former administration made when facing threats of terrorism, which ran contrary to basic American values. Those decisions were ineffective and, more importantly, unsustainable.

Cheney’s issue was that not only were the Bush administration’s policies not erroneous, he said they had even successfully prevented a repeat of the 9/11 tragedy. He maintained that measures such as the methods of interrogating the terror suspects, the establishment of the Guantanamo Bay prison, and enhanced monitoring procedures during the Bush era had ensured the U.S.’s security in the eight years following the terrorist attack.

In fact, right before his speech, Cheney said during an interview with the media that under Obama’s leadership, the possibility of terrorists launching nuclear or biological warfare is “very high.”

Cheney inflating the figures to defend the use of torture?

However, Cheney’s citation of the figures in defense of the employment of torture made others suspect that he inflated the figures. He said it was a proven fact that the use of torture can force some terror suspects to reveal highly confidential information. Such methods have saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives, according to Cheney.

The Los Angeles Times interviewed many experts on the subject. Georgetown University’s terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman said, “ It’s (the figure) an easy thing to say and a difficult thing to prove. I think it’s another broadside in this ongoing feud.”

The AEI’s intelligence expert, Gary J. Schmitt, said, however, that if Cheney was talking about Al-Qaeda’s attempt to lay their hands on nuclear or biological weapons, and if their efforts were thwarted, that figure would perhaps make some sense.

Last year, President Bush quoted an example that said during his term, U.S. intelligence cracked and stopped a series of major terrorist attack plots. They included the plot to destroy New York’s airport fuel store, the plot to set off a bomb aboard a passenger plane heading to the Atlantic coast, and a plot to decimate the Los Angeles Public Library.

However, even if those plots were successful, the number of casualties would definitely not be as much as a hundred thousand like Cheney said, unless Al-Qaeda had gotten hold of nuclear bombs. Hoffman believes that Al-Qaeda does not have any nuclear bombs in its possession.

Los Angeles Times reporters queried Cheney’s office on what the statement of saying hundreds of thousands of lives were saved was based on, but the office refused to comment.

Experts studying Cheney’s thinking pointed out that after having experienced 9/11, Cheney has had the inclination to exaggerate the threat. The principle of his national security policies were very simple: “Rather hit the wrong target than to miss it,” “rather to believe in the existence of something than not,” and “one can never be too careful.”

I have recently come across an article on the web mentioning that Pulitzer Prize winner Ron Suskind revealed in his book, “The One Percent Doctrine,” that in November 2001, two months after the 9/11 incident, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to Cheney that two Pakistani scientists who helped Libya develop nuclear weapons had met with Osama bin Laden. Cheney’s reaction then was that even if there was only a one percent possibility of that having taken place, the U.S. should pay serious attention to it, and to be prepared to respond and counter promptly to prevent the 9/11 tragedy from repeating itself.

Suskind believed that following the 9/11 incident, the “One Percent Doctrine” (also known as the Cheney Doctrine) had become the Bush administration’s strategic principle in its War on Terror. In other words, if any signs of possible attacks on the U.S. were discovered, there would not be a need for substantial evidence as a basis for launching a preemptive strike on the enemy; suspicions alone would suffice.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell had also pointed out that Cheney was always suspicious of Iraq. He had tried all ways to piece intelligence together muddily to prove that Saddam Hussein had dealings with the suspects behind the 9/11 incident to create an excuse to launch a military attack on Iraq. In the end, however, no “weapons of mass destruction” cited by the intelligence unit were found. Powell was thoroughly embarrassed in front of the United Nations Security Council.

Those who dislike Cheney would say that Cheney still hankers for his position of power at the National Security Council. Even though he was past his time, he still could not bear to let go. There were also those who said that Cheney was one of the most unpopular of all public figures. The more he talked, the more repulsed the public felt.

Nevertheless, Cheney’s recent repeated alarmist talk at the National Security Council has given Mr. Obama some pressure. Without having to look too far, on the day that the two were having a verbal spar, Mr. Obama’s plan for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison hit the rocks in Congress. His proposal for allocating $80 million for closing the prison was vetoed by both the Senate and the House.

Certainly no one would accuse Cheney of gloating and wishing that the U.S. would experience another terrorist attack in order to prove that his views were right.

However, with Obama still in office, if there were any mishaps in the U.S.’s national security, no matter how high the casualties, Cheney and the Republicans will say plausibly that it was the result of Obama acting willfully, dismantling the security measures that the Bush administration had built up.

The Washington Post put it very well, saying that even if Cheney was not able to turn Obama’s new policies around, he has already buried a bomb successfully. In the next four years, if the U.S. experiences another terrorist attack, Mr. Obama will become the sacrificial lamb.