1115.org

Three weeks ago, Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote:

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?

I have not seen this repudiated anywhere. But if it is true, then the main objective of the strenuous campaign the Bushies mounted during the Bush-Cheney second term to defend and justify the “Cheney interrogation methods” must have been to stave off investigations by congressional oversight committees. While they were harping on the imperative need to keep the homeland safe, the imperative need was really to maintain the cloak of secrecy over controversial methods of questionable legality. They were just cynically exploiting homeland security as they had done throughout the Bush-Cheney years, this time to cover up possible wrongdoing (as opposed to winning re-election).

The Washington Post has a story today about Prick Cheney’s personal, hands-on role in this campaign:

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney personally oversaw at least four briefings with senior members of Congress about the controversial interrogation program, part of a secretive and forceful defense he mounted throughout 2005 in an effort to maintain support for the harsh techniques used on detainees.

The Cheney-led briefings came at some of the most critical moments for the program, as congressional oversight committees were threatening to investigate or even terminate the techniques, according to lawmakers, congressional officials, and current and former intelligence officials.

Cheney’s role in helping handle intelligence issues in the Bush administration — particularly his advocacy for the use of aggressive methods and warrantless wiretapping against alleged terrorists — has been well documented. But his hands-on role in defending the interrogation program to lawmakers has not been previously publicized.

Among other things, this story once again calls into question the reliability of the CIA’s so-called notes and records of such briefings:

The CIA made no mention of his role in documents delivered to Capitol Hill last month that listed every lawmaker who had been briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” since 2002. For meetings that were overseen by Cheney, the agency told the intelligence committees that information about who oversaw those briefings was “not available.”

It’s hard to avoid inferring that the CIA notes were cleaned up to say exactly what the Cheneyites wanted them to say. You may be surprised to hear that the “CIA declined to comment on why Cheney’s presence in some meetings was left out of the records.”

No wonder CIA director Leon Panetta made a point of disavowing the reliability of the CIA records.