The Osterley Times

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Cheney's Marker.

Jeffrey Toobin, in an article in The New Yorker, picks up the same vibe which I detected in Cheney's speech, the laying down of a marker which states that Obama will be to blame for any future attack on US soil.

The speech was, as politicians say, a marker—a warning to the new Administration. “Just remember: it is a serious step to begin unravelling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11,” Cheney said. “Seven and a half years without a repeat is not a record to be rebuked and scorned, much less criminalized. It is a record to be continued until the danger has passed.” Cheney’s all but explicit message was that the blame for any new attack against American people or interests would be laid not on the terrorists, or on the worldwide climate of anti-Americanism created by the Bush-Cheney Administration, but on Barack Obama. For many months after the 9/11 attacks, Democrats refrained from engaging in the blame game with the Bush Administration. Cheney’s speech makes it clear that, should terrorists strike again, Republicans may not respond in kind.

It's astonishing to me that anyone could publicly make the case for torture, and yet that is now the official position of the Republican party as enunciated by Dick Cheney.

And, worse than that, he is actually openly arguing that Obama is endangering America by refusing to continue practising his war crimes.

I know that Cheney is doing all of this as way of, hopefully, avoiding prosecution; but there are times when his argument is so outrageous that he almost impels that he be prosecuted simply to put this issue to bed once and for all.

Cheney’s political acumen is not to be underestimated, notwithstanding his image problems. Last week’s lopsided Senate vote suggests that Republican mastery of the politics of national security (if not of national security itself) remains intact. During the campaign, the majority of voters came to support Obama’s contention that a tradeoff between our values and our security is a false choice. (And John McCain largely agreed.) But the quick flight of most congressional Democrats from their President suggests just how difficult a political assignment Obama has given himself. Cheney, in proclaiming that another attack will prove that his policies were correct, is trying to undermine confidence in the new team in the White House. The President gave a persuasive speech last week, but it proved only that he has a lot more persuading to do.

There's a very simple way for Cheney's theories to be tested, and that is in a court of law. Cheney insists that what he did was perfectly legal, whilst horrible lefties like myself insist that he committed war crimes. It seems only fair to give him his day in court to clear his good name.

Click title for full article.

Dumb-as-a-Sack-of-Hammers; Andrew Breitbart Says Oprah is Running Obama White House.

Obama's presidency has driven the right wingers nuts, and the Glenn Beck Show is as good a place as any to follow just how insane they have become.

Here, Andrew Breitbart actually argues that the Obama presidency is being orchestrated by Oprah Winfrey.

Breitbart: Well, this doesn’t surprise me. Does it surprise you? This is the Oprah Winfrey presidency. She was his biggest supporter, and I think that she’s been behind the scenes orchestrating this presidency as a media presidency, photo ops, giving billions of dollars of gifts away to people and to companies like General Electric, and until the mainstream media starts realizing --

Beck: Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that Barack Obama walks into a room and goes, "GE CEOs, look under your seat!"

Breitbart: I think that's exactly what it is.

Beck: You've got a bailout. Is that what you're suggesting?

Breitbart: That's exactly what I'm suggesting. It is the Oprah Winfrey presidency.

How does Fox News manage to still have viewers when they are peddling this insane shit? It's beyond delusional and is starting to push the door marked, "hysterical".

The Rise of the BNP.

One of the greatest dangers facing the UK at this time of public disgust with the traditional political parties over the MP's expenses scandal is that the winners could be much more radical parties like the BNP.

Like many people I was considering boycotting the European elections until a Labour party leaflet dropped through my door highlighting the views which the BNP are currently advocating.

Apparently, the BNP have instructed their members not to use the term "Asian Britons" as such a thing, "does not exist."

The BNP chairman Nick Griffin spoke to the BBC to defend a party leaflet that said black and Asian Britons "do not exist", arguing that calling such people British denied indigenous people their own identity.
"In a very subtle way, it's a sort of bloodless genocide," he said.
"These people are 'black residents' of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese," he said.
"Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as 'racial foreigners', a non-pejorative term ... the key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult."

This disgusting racism has to be fought on every level, and, much as we are all angry at the recently exposed expenses scandal, we cannot allow that to blind us to the danger of allowing these racists to achieve power through the backdoor.

These people are moronic and dangerous. Vote, and I don't even care if you vote Conservative if that's your bag, but make sure that your anger and apathy aren't exploited to allow these right wing loons to gain power.

Their views should be abhorrent to any rational human being.

The manual describes the BNP's "ultimate aim" as the "lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK".
"We don't subscribe to the politically correct fiction that just because they happen to be born in Britain, a Pakistani is a Briton. They're not. They remain of Pakistani stock," he added.

These people are disgusting, and we should make sure that they never achieve power. And every vote for Brown or Cameron - angry as we are with them - is a vote which prevents these lunatics from ever gaining office.

Click title for full article.

Memorial Day.

The US celebrate today as Memorial Day, a day when we remember those who have fallen in service.

I think it's astonishing that some people offer to put their lives at risk to protect the rest of us at times when our country faces maximum danger, and I get so angry at the fact that some politicians take this incredible act of generosity so lightly and enter wars of choice, like the Iraq war; a war that was completely unnecessary.

Nothing sums up the taking of this act of generosity too lightly as Cheney's remark, when the dead from Iraq reached 4,000, that those who died, "volunteered", as if this somehow removed from politicians the need to respect the generosity of what the servicemen were offering.

What's even more astonishing to me is that the Cheney's of this world - and their right wing counterparts - are allowed to paint themselves as, somehow, on the side of the troops, even as they place them in danger unnecessarily. The Cheney's of this world don't give a shit about the troops, as Cheney's cynical remark about them "volunteering" amply proves.

So today we rightly remember those who have fallen, but we should also remember the people who placed them in danger unnecessarily, and we should seek ways to make them accountable for what they have done.

That's the real way to show respect for the dead. We should work to make sure that no politicians ever again take the volunteer army's incredible offer to defend us at our moment of maximum danger as lightly or as flippantly as Bush and Cheney did.

UPDATE:

This picture says all that needs to be said about the sacrifice which some soldiers make. It's a sacrifice that has devastating effects on the lives of everyone who knew them, but especially on their children.

It appalls me that people like Dick Cheney and George Bush manipulated evidence in order to bring about a war of choice. A war which has devastated hundreds of thousands of people's lives, bringing grief and misery which will take years and years to come to terms with.

And, the most appalling thing, is that none of it was necessary.

I apologise if I sound like a broken record, but Obama needs to prosecute these people.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Israel's dangerous swing to the right.

Israel's swing to the right really is beginning to border on fascism, especially if Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party gets their way and manages to pass a new law requiring all Israelis to swear loyalty to the state of Israel as a Jewish state.

The bill calls for enabling the interior minister to lift someone's citizenship if he or she fails to either serve in the Israel Defense Forces or do a term of national service.

Party spokesman Tal Nahum said the measure would require all Israelis to declare loyalty "to the state of Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state" before they can be issued a national identity document. The law requires all Israeli residents over 16 carry their identity cards at all times.

The wording seems almost designed to cause maximum offense to Arab Israelis and appears to have been crafted to make it next to impossible for any Arab Israeli with a hint of self esteem to be able to take it.

And, should they refuse to take this oath, then their citizenship is removed; which one can't help but feel is the whole point of the dreadful bill which Lieberman is proposing.

And this is coming on top of another bill which proposes to make it illegal for Arab Israelis and Palestinians to commemorate Nakba, the catastrophe which befell them when the state of Israel was created.

Public commemoration of Israel's independence as a day of mourning could become a crime subject to prison penalty, should a bill approved on Sunday by a ministerial panel be brought to the Knesset and cabinet for vote.

The Ministerial Committee for Legislation on Sunday approved a preliminary proposal which would make it illegal to hold events or ceremonies marking Israel's Independence Day as a "nakba," or catastrophe.

Rather than holding barbecues and parades on Independence Day, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians usually take the day to commemorate the dispersal of Palestinians during the 1948 War of Independence.

Palestinian refugees around the world and Israel's Arab citizens mark the Nakba on May 15, the day after the British mandate over Palestine ended in 1948. Nakba Day is often observed by the Arab population in Israel with marches through destroyed villages.

According to the bill, those found in violation could face up to three years in prison.

The simple fact of the matter is that the creation of Israel was a catastrophe for many Palestinians who were driven from their homes so that Israel could be created. To criminalise how these people feel about one of their darkest days is simply incendiary.

One can only hope that neither of these laws has any chance of getting through the Knesset, but it's disgraceful that they are even being proposed.

Under Netanyahu and Lieberman, Israel is taking a lurch to the extreme right which I find horrifying.

Cheney Throws Troops Under the Bus.

Cenk Uygur on Cheney's speech and the plans, revealed in Phillipe Sands new book, which the administration had to betray the troops if word of what they were doing ever became public.

Schwarzenegger Targets The Poor.

What the Hell is going on in California?

Californians gave the electoral finger to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday when they voted against five ballot measures intended to fix the Golden State’s budget drama by increasing taxes, redistributing state funds and borrowing money. On top of already double-digit unemployment, a plummeting housing market and an eroding educational system, the state now faces a budget gap of more than $21 billion.

This seems to me to totally undermine the oft quoted notion that we need less government as the people can manage their own affairs. It appears as if the people of California are well on the way to state bankruptcy because the people, when given a choice, have decided that they don't want to pay their collective bills.

Schwarzenegger it seems will now try to balance the books by removing benefits from the poor:

To balance the books, Schwarzenegger is eyeing the dismantling of the state's CalWorks program, which serves more than 500,000 poor families with children, as well as the elimination of Healthy Families, which provides medical coverage to 928,000 children and teens.

Mothballing the two programs would save the state about $1.4 billion in the coming fiscal year, officials said.

If the proposals to slash the safety net come to pass, they would completely reshape the state's social service network, transforming California from one of the country's most generous states to one of the most tightfisted in aiding the poor.

Also potentially on the chopping block is CalGrants, a financial assistance program that offers cash grants to lower- and middle-income college students each year.

The governor's proposal would eliminate the 77,000 new grants awarded each year at a cost of $180 million, but that saving would eventually grow to more than $900 million as students graduated and the program was phased out.

I find that profoundly depressing. And I can't even get angry at Schwarzenegger, as it really does appear as if the people have left him with no other choice.

Bill Maher sums it up best:

“This is why America’s founders wanted a representative democracy, because they knew if you gave the average guy the chance, he’d vote for a fantasy world with no taxes, free beer and vagina trees.”

California is losing it's collective mind.

Netanyahu says settlements can expand.

Well, Netanyahu has certainly responded to his first meeting with Barack Obama in a way which answers any questions over whether or not he is serious about peace. Answer: He's not.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says settlements in the occupied West Bank will be allowed to expand despite US objections.

Mr Netanyahu said no new settlements would be built, but natural growth in existing settlements should be allowed.

During Mr Netanyahu's visit to the US last week, President Barack Obama told him all settlement activity must end. The US regards the Jewish settlements -home to some 280,000 Israelis - as obstacles to the peace process.

"I have no intention to construct new settlements, but it makes no sense to ask us not to answer to the needs of natural growth and to stop all construction," a senior official quoted Mr Netanyahu as telling the Israeli cabinet.

"There is no way that we are going to tell people not to have children or to force young people to move away from their families," he added.

Netanyahu has quite simply declared war with the Obama administration, as the expansion of existing settlements under the pretext of "natural growth" is the main way that the Israelis have expanded their presence in the occupied territories for decades now. Netanyahu is basically saying it's business as usual.

And the excuse Netanyahu is offering is simply blatant garbage, offered up only to convince those who are already on the Likud side.

Most people accept that, even though all countries require "natural growth", that a state, nevertheless, grows within its own borders. By going upwards rather than outwards if necessary.

The Israelis are unique in arguing that it is the most natural thing in the world for them to naturally grow across the land of another people. It's an act of blatant theft wrapped up in horseshit for those stupid enough to swallow it.

I am sure that the Obama administration are not of that ilk. Obama has been ignored and he will know that he has been ignored. The real question is how far is Obama prepared to go to yank Israel into line behind his plan.

I suspect a cold hard frost is about to descend between the governments of Israel and the US, although Hillary will be doing her best to bring about a thaw. I hope that her behaviour is part of some great Obama plan, rather than Hillary undermining her own president.

Click title for full article.

Durbin Calls Gingrich Out.

Durbin calls Gingrich out, whilst Gingrich is demanding that Pelosi apologise for saying that the CIA lied, and points out that Gingrich himself once said that the CIA, "misled the American people".

Ben Nelson Keeps Door Open To "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

Leaving aside the idiocy of arguing that certain prisoners must not be brought to "the continental USA", Ben Nelson then goes on to say:

But what we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that is gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques."

I mean, seriously, where has this guy been? Has he been paying any attention to the arguments laid out by his president?

He still thinks it's okay to torture and yet this moron calls himself a Democrat? Unbelievable.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Colin Powell On Face The Nation.

Powell makes great sense here. The right wing of the Republican party are out of control and are taking over the entire party and demanding the exclusion of anyone who does not share their rigid ideology.

"You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on it. I believe we should build on it."

He's completely right, but that's not the way Rush Limbaugh and the other nutcases see it as they try to build the narrowest political tent in history. As far as they are concerned, it's their way or the highway.

The Limbaugh's and the Cheney's of the world actually question whether or not Powell can even be considered a Republican anymore. That's actually an indication of how insanely right wing they have become rather than any indictment on Powell himself.

And Powell is not frightened to point out the dangerous hold Limbaugh currently has on the Republican party.

"When the chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, issues even the mildest of criticisms concerning Mr. Limbaugh, and then 24 hours later, the chairman of the RNC has to lay prostrate on the floor, apologizing for it; and when two congressmen offer the mildest criticism of Mr. Limbaugh, they too then 24 hours later have such pressure brought to bear on them that they too, had to change their view and apologize for criticizing him - well, if he's out there, he should be subject to criticism, just as I am subject to criticism, " he said.

Powell also points out that Cheney, when he criticises Obama's plans to close Guantanamo, is actually ignoring the fact that Bush wanted to close Guantanamo. In many ways Cheney is re-fighting battles which he lost during the Bush years, in the exact same way as he is fighting to demand that Obama continue "enhanced interrogation techniques", despite the fact that this practice was also ended during the first term of the Bush administration.

And I am very pleased that Powell makes the case that the US can safely imprison terrorists, as the lunacy of the argument which Cheney and others are making simply fries my brain.

And Powell does well to dismiss the Republican habit of using slogans against big government, when, as he points out, what is needed is effective government, whatever size that happens to require. The Republicans appear to me to still be clutching to Reaganism in their slogans, even as the Reagan rationale is being dismantled by economic disaster. Deregulation is not the answer. The notion that giving more to the rich will eventually trickle down to the poor has been proven as the ridiculous fallacy many of us always thought it was.

So what are the American extreme right actually left with? A collection of Reaganite beliefs which the public no longer believe in. Indeed, Obama was able to sweep them aside precisely because he was brave enough - and articulate enough - to make a counter argument to Reaganism.

And yet, the Reaganites continue to hold a massive sway in the Republican party, as the sidelining of sensible people like Powell amply demonstrates.

The truth is that the Limbaugh Republicans are really lemmings heading off of a cliff. The Republicans really have become the party of Limbaugh and the other nutters: Cheney, O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin, rather than the party of sensible conservatives like Powell.

That's why the number of people willing to identify themselves as Republicans has dropped through the floor.

The lunatics are running the asylum.

Scarborough Compares Obama v. Cheney to 'A Few Good Men.'

Scarborough compares Cheney and Obama's confrontation the other day to the final scene of A Few Good Men and, in doing so, reflects the core of the current argument between national security and what he refers to as "our highest ideals"; which one gets the feeling that Joe thinks the US can't afford at this moment, which was essentially the very logic which Obama was arguing against.

It's hard not to conclude that Scarborough is on the side of the Jack Nicholson character who states, "You want me on that wall, you need me on that wall."

Of course, the movie ends with the Jack Nicholson character being jailed for his illegal activities, a point which seems to elude Scarborough.

It's an ending that many of us would love to see replicated with Dick Cheney.

Of course, the script would require a small rewrite with the Cruise character now having the line, "You can't handle the truth." And adding, "Waterboarding is torture."

Hat tip to Think Progress.

O'Donnell on Cheney Speech - Sleazy and full of lies.

One of the things which Chris Matthew rightly picks up one here is the ludicrous way in which Cheney now attempts to pretend that he is speaking up to defend the CIA. During his time in office no-one was more critical of the CIA than Dick Cheney, which makes it ludicrous that he now sets himself up as their defender.

The truth is that both Cheney and his daughter Liz are making this argument because they seek to defend Cheney from possible prosecution.

To claim that Cheney is behaving in this way to protect the CIA is to push credibility to breaking point.

And Cheney's point that "US taxpayers dollars will be used to support" terrorists should they be transferred to the US ignores the fact that US taxpayers dollars are supporting them in Guantanamo Bay at this very moment.

Pat Buchanan then goes on to try and argue that Cheney means that the US will end up paying for terrorists to have lawyers. Which sort of begs the question, what legal system would Cheney and Buchanan prefer? One in which the accused are not allowed lawyers?

Ukip leader Nigel Farage boasts of his £2m in expenses.

The rise of the BNP in the wake of the recent expenses scandal is of enough worry to have brought both the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to publicly warn people not to allow their disillusionment with the system lead them to supporting such extremism.

But there's a better reason for asking people not to support such blatant racists; it turns out that they have been ripping off the system even more than the other MP's whose actions they have been so loud to condemn:

During a debate about Europe at the Foreign Press Association - which was discreetly taped by the hosts - Farage was asked by former Europe minister Denis MacShane what he had received in non-salary expenses and allowances since becoming an MEP in 1999.

"It is a vast sum," Farage said. "I don't know what the total amount is but - oh lor - it must be pushing £2 million." Taken aback, MacShane then joked: "Is it too late to become an MEP?"

Farage insisted that he had not "pocketed" the money but had used the "very large sum of European taxpayers' money" to help promote Ukip's message that the UK should get out of the EU.

When asked later by the Observer to justify how he could claim so much while running a campaign attacking Westminster MPs for their extravagance, Farage was unapologetic, saying that, while MEPs were "very expensive", he was entirely happy that the money had been used for the best of causes."

Farage might flatter himself to think that he used this vast amount of money to promote his cause but it's still tax payers money and he still took this money over and above his salary.

Which makes his outrage over MP's expenses ring hollow to say the very least.

MacShane suggested that Ukip's attempt to pose as more honourable on expenses than other parties had been exposed as shameless and hollow.

"Far from being the party of the little man in Europe, Nigel Farage's astounding £2m raid on the taxpayer shows he is up there with any other politician, happy to line his pockets with gold," he said.

I think McShane sums up Farage's position on this subject perfectly: "shameless and hollow". I think that is spot on. He's effecting outrage at the sums being claimed by other MP's while claiming sums vastly in excess of the one's which he is condemning.

It takes a particular kind of brass neck to attempt to justify hypocrisy on that scale.

Click title for full article.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Martin Sheen on Jonathan Ross.

I thought American readers might enjoy this appearance by Martin Sheen on British television. Especially the reaction of British viewers when the subject moves to President Bush and Obama.

This is one of our most popular television chat show hosts, and the audience is very mainstream, but the intense unpopularity of Bush, and the contrast with how the audience react to Obama's name when it is mentioned, should tell you all you need to know about how people over here feel about the arrival of Obama.

Conservative Radio Host Mancow Waterboarded! Says It's ABSOLUTLY TORTURE!

So, a right wing radio shock jock agrees to be waterboarded in order to prove that it is NOT torture. He changed his mind INSTANTLY. He now agrees that this is, "absolutely torture, absolutely, that's drowning!"

And, lets not forget, he knew that he could end this process at any time, a luxury which was not afforded to Cheney's victims.

The argument over this subject should now be considered over. Especially as this guy agreed to have this done specifically to prove that it was not torture.

Maybe Cheney can agree to be waterboarded publicly to prove that this process is not torture?

Breaking News: Cleaning up shit is smelly.

I agree that the president should not have the power to detain anyone simply on his own word and that all prisoners should have the right of Habeas Corpus. And I am also aware that many on the left, like Rachel Maddow here, are up in arms about Obama's proposal yesterday to indefinitely detain certain prisoners currently held at Guantanamo Bay.

However, I think we need to cut the guy some slack here. This is a situation which he inherited. It was not one which he designed, it was one which Bush and Cheney designed.

Were it up to Obama, Guantanamo Bay would never have opened and the present problems would not exist.

However, one of the greatest problems he inherited was that certain prisoners, like Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and al Nashiri, are known to want to harm the US and her citizens; but, the fact that Bush and Cheney ordered them to be tortured, makes prosecution of them utterly impossible. Any court would dismiss evidence against them as tainted and order their immediate release.

So what choices does Obama have? The most obvious choice - and the one which the law currently demands - is that he should simply release these men. I could make the argument that any US citizens who died in future, as a result of the release of these men, would actually be the fault of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld; because it was down to the fact that they illegally tortured these men that made their prosecution impossible. However, I doubt that would go down very well with the families of their victims.

Had Obama been president at the time of these men's arrest, I feel sure that he would have prosecuted them. He would have done the very thing which Cheney yesterday rejected: he would have treated them as the criminals that they are.

It was Bush and Cheney who elevated these men to the position of warriors and who, by torturing them, made their prosecution impossible.

So we really aren't in a situation here where Obama can make a good or a bad choice. We are in a position, brought about by the incompetence, ideology and lack of foresight of the previous administration, where Obama's choice has been reduced to bad or infinitely worse.

And I agree that he is choosing the bad choice, I simply happen to think that's slightly better than the infinitely worse choice, where he is forced to release people who have vowed to kill Americans.

Unlike Bush, who made the cowardly decision to push this thorny problem down the road towards his successor, Obama has decided to clean up Bush's shit.

And yes, he has got some of it on his hands and he does smell a bit. But let's never forget whose shit this was in the first place. Bush created so much of the stuff that there was no ideal solution, no magic wand which Obama could wave and restore Habeas Corpus instantly for all. In a few, a very few cases, he will have to reverse and suspend the principles which he so eloquently laid out yesterday.

That sucks. But please, let us stop pretending that he did this through choice or that, had he been president at the time of these men's arrest, that this situation would ever have arisen.

He's been dealt a really, really bad hand. Let's cut the guy a sliver of slack as he takes on the gargantuan task of fixing Bush and Cheney's legal black hole.

Cheney & The Republicans Are Positioning Themselves For Another Terrorist Attack On America!

It's astonishing that the Republican party should be pushing a new version of the 1964 "Daisy" ad, in response to Obama's decision to close Guantanamo Bay.

I mean, seriously? It seems to me that this is a continuation of Cheney's point that Obama is making the US left safe. At first it was only Cheney making the argument that any future attack on the would be the fault of Obama but, with the release of this advert, it now appears that this is actually the position of the entire GOP.

That's a shameful position for a political party to find itself in. It now appears as if the only hope of redemption the Republicans have is hoping that the US might be attacked again.

I really hope the American people can see through this shameless cynicism. I mean, seriously, closing Gitmo is akin to a nuclear attack? These guys are off their bloody heads.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Cheney lectures on "contrived indignation and phony moralising."

Cheney: Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job, and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralising as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists. I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no way to lecture anyone about values.

That's unbelievable. It is simply beyond his imagination to conceive that some people might be genuinely outraged by what he has done.

He thinks the outrage is "feigned" and is nothing more than, "contrived indignation". He just can't get it through his head that what he has done has genuinely repulsed people. That really is the mindset of a monster. He simply doesn't believe that everyone doesn't think the way he does.

Liz Cheney: I Think Your Question Is Highly Irresponsible.

Liz Cheney thinks there is no link between Abu Ghraib and the enhanced interrogation techniques which her father championed.

She then, disgracefully, presents Obama's way of thinking - which was endorsed by the American public at the last election - as, "sacrificing American lives because you are concerned about the rough treatment of terrorists."

And, as is pointed out to her here, Cheney is defending policies which even the Bush administration stepped away from and discontinued. So it's very hard to accept her premise that Cheney is speaking out because he is concerned with national security, indeed, it's quite blatant that he is speaking out to defend his own reputation and, hopefully, to steer clear of a criminal trial.

And, when it's pointed to her that more than a 100 people have died in US custody and that twenty of those were actually murdered, she suggests that the question is, "highly irresponsible". You see, it's "irresponsible" to see any link between a torture programme and the death of prisoners in custody as the US policy which her father employed was strict and legal and all above board.

She's perhaps forgetting that Jonathan Fredman, then the Counsel for CounterTerrorism Center at CIA, now working for the Director of National Intelligence, told some interrogators at Gitmo:

"It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong."

That system doesn't sound as strict as Cheney is implying. Indeed, it sounds like they were making it up as they went along.

She then laments the fact that future American presidents will not be able to use these techniques, something which any sane person will be delighted about. I'm sorry, but Liz Cheney is as much of an abomination as her father is.