Subsequent to the September 11^th 2001 terrorist attack on the United States there was great need for building, but most Americans understood that the attack itself revealed tremendous flaws in the foundation of our country. Now, eight years later, the President and his top advisors are trying to decide what the objective and course of action of the United States should be with respect to the war in Afghanistan. So much of what afflicts this great country can be directly traced to this particular disrepair of its foundation, that it is incumbent on all Americans to achieve clarity as to what our national course of action must be.

In recent history Afghanistan has been known to the United States as a failed state. During the 1990’s an Islamic fundamentalist government, the Taliban, was allowed to gain power. This government once in power gave refuge to the terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda—headed by Osama bin Laden. This history is well known to most and it should be easily concluded that this threat to our country would have, best, been dealt with at its inception. But because it was allowed to crest into what became known as 9/11 an entirely different course of compulsory action became required—and remains so until this very day. 

The removal of the Taliban and the disruption / destruction of Al-Qaeda, the stated goals of the Bush administration and the restated goals of the Obama administration, was not, is not, and never will be the solution to the threat the United States and other liberal democracy’s face from Islamic terrorism. The only way to end the threat is to UTTERLY DESTROY not only the enemy combatant of today, but their entire way of life, so that there will not be an enemy combatant of tomorrow. And make no mistake about it; we have done this before. President Lincoln ordered General Sherman not just to destroy the Southern Army, he ordered the destruction of the South and the Southern way of life—Sherman literally burnt the South to the ground. President Roosevelt and his successor President Truman gave neither Germany nor Japan the opportunity for anything other than UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. And this was only achieved in both cases after the entire force of American military power was brought to bear on these heinous enemies of humanity.

The reason that President Obama suffers the quandary of Afghanistan is not of any kind of mystery to even the most slightly informed—eight years have passed and the enemies of the United States have yet to feel anything close to the full force of American military power. A few days after the attack of September 11^th several people inquired as to my thoughts on an appropriate response. I shared my belief, then, that the size of the United States military would at a minimum need to be doubled and realistically should be thrice its peacetime size. I was definitive that the force, which needed to be sent to completely eliminate the threat in Afghanistan, was a force numbering one million soldiers with no less than three hundred thousand combat troops. I was also definitive that once the leadership of Al-Qaeda was tracked to a small enough geographical region the use of tactical nuclear weapons should be an option. ONE MILLION SOLDIERS AND EVERY WEAPON IN THE ARSENAL, I said this then and I repeat this now.

When our enemy comes into the possession of a nuclear devise they will bring it to Washington DC and detonate it. If they come to possess two nuclear devices they will bring a bomb to New York and detonate it as well. If left alive, they will achieve their goals and American’s will wake up one morning, as we did on September 11^th and we will get the news that one or more of our cities has been destroyed and millions of our fellow brothers and sister have been annihilated—THIS WILL HAPPEN if we fail to act.

There will be those who might question my prescription. “The Russians tried to occupy Afghanistan and couldn’t bring the country under their control,” they will say. Whether it is agenda or ignorance that drives this thought I do not profess to know, but the fact is this: the Soviet Union with a badly equipped force of one hundred thousand soldiers took almost complete control of Afghanistan and would have gained complete control if it had not been for an enormous effort by the United States. The effort, for those who are not well versed in this chapter of American history, was the supplying of billions of dollars worth of sophisticated weapons to the anti Soviet forces—all of this orchestrated by President Carter and his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. And it should be noted that it is this same anti Soviet force created by President Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski, which now threatens the existence of the United States—strangely both men continue to weigh in on national affairs and foreign policy.

The job of the President and the government of the United States is, above all other matters, to protect the people of the United States of America—THAT’S IT. There is no point of building an economy as a nation or life as a citizen in a place, which at the choosing of an enemy a world away can be obliterated. Everything we would like to achieve as a nation and as individuals is both reliant and contingent on a foundation of peaceful unmolested existence—and the expected continuum thereof. The roots of insidious doubt, intentionally planted by our enemies on 9/11, are the same roots that touch so much of the shortsighted, greedy, self-absorption that has caused more damage to the United States than the attack itself. Post September 11^th the United States transformed into a country akin to a man who has been told he has a 50 / 50 chance of dying every minute of the day—not figuratively, literally. And so the soul of this country is plagued, rather than spirited by talk of the future.

The only cure for what ails the soul of America is the overwhelming defeat of its enemies. And the rebuilding of what they have destroyed—bigger and better. This should have been accomplished many years ago, but the failures of the past must not be the excuse for failure in the future—the mission not accomplished must be still be accomplished. Economic prosperity, healthcare and education are all very worthwhile concerns, but there is unfinished, and far more serious, business that needs to be brought to a final and definitive conclusion—FIRST. And upon this conclusion, as it has in the past, this country will return to its greatness. THEN AND ONLY THEN.

A friend and I were having lunch the other day when the topic of our most recently discredited politician joined us in conversation. I suggested – and still believe – that President Obama will marginalize the issue of whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew the CIA was using techniques labeled “enhanced interrogation.” Digging through past events will benefit neither his administration nor the Democratic Congress, and he has controversy in the present that requires his attention. My friend took my point, but to it added his circumspect two-cents:

“It is a grave mischance for the individual that indentifies in his opponent 20 flaws, 19 of which are true, for though they will have shown their opponent to be deeply flawed; to an audience, accuser and accused will appear on equal terms.” (It is possible that given a period of interlude this quote waxed eloquent in my memory. Still, it must be noted that only one of us treated the issue of Nancy Pelosi and her dalliances with untruth with proper distance that afternoon. I shall have to invite my friend to lunch again and thank him.)

For those readers unclear on the details, the AP provides a useful timeline of events concerning Pelosi, the CIA, and the memos in between (it can be found here). The debate has centered on whether Pelosi, in her position on the House Intelligence Committee, was briefed on the CIA’s use of methods now considered to be torture. If she was, she lied this year in April when she stated “we were not — I repeat, were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.” The CIA, in what can only be interpreted as a half-hearted response to her statement, released documents that show they did brief Pelosi, or a member of her staff, on those methods – maybe. According to C.I.A Director Leon Panetta, he cannot verify “whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.”

So what are engrossed supporters and opponents of Pelosi – that dwindling lot – left with? It is the possibility that a politician deceived the public about how much she knew, and did so to make herself seem morally clean. Whether or not Pelosi actually lied will never be resolved provided she sticks to her story and keeps any potential leaks on her staff stoppered. Critics may continue to pretend the case against her is open and shut, that Pelosi lied and the question is only how we should react, but clearly they overplay their hand. The House Speaker has not yet been caught contradicting herself, contradictory evidence has yet to be conclusive, and thus an actual lie cannot be shown. Unless, Hannity, Limbaugh, and kind wish to consider interrogating Pelosi with – shall we say – enhanced enthusiasm, they will continue to utter nonsense remarks regarding this point (though, Newt Grinch put hopes to rest; assuring The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart the GOP would not use torture on Pelosi).

This debate on Pelosi’s ignorance of the Bush Administrations’ torturing of detainees has likely advanced to its final stage. No new facts are due to be disclosed and all relevant parties have given their reports. But suppose this was not case and, instead, Pelosi having lied was fait accompli. As was intimated earlier, a politician lying is surely by now a banality. Could the babbling class on television and in print really be surprised by this uninteresting revelation? Neither party stands to gain from drawing a spotlight on the Speaker’s record.

Democrats, quite obviously, have important items on their agenda and, as they have a majority in both houses, would be very foolish to squander precious legislating days on a defensive effort for their speaker – they should bite the reign, lower their heads, and ignore any and all calls to do otherwise.

Republicans may, in the short term, be attracted to making a fuss over Pelosi and arguably they would stand to gain a little. If they could draw Democratic attention away from their agenda, then a small victory is won. However, it should by now be apparent to everyone that Republicans are ideologically and strategically awry. Pundits will often suggest that the GOP is in the process of “soul searching,” which seems off-the mark (and a little too close to the language one uses when describing the supposed activity the one weird kid from school would be doing when people told him to leave them alone). I prefer to imagine Republicans as a steam engine that has exhausted its fuel. That said, all they need to once more make political headway is new fuel and a talented conductor.  But the Pelosi lie is not new fuel. Even if Republicans did not care about reconstructing (or reverting to) a Party ideology and simply wanted an issue that would hurt Democrats and help Republicans they should look beyond Pelosi. To attack her record on torture would be to invite Americans to consider yet again their dislike of controversial Bush policy and Republican quiescence toward it.

To put it plainly, the Pelosi jibber jabber is the aftershock of a really violent earthquake. It is bad, and sometimes newsworthy, when a politician lies to the people. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” as President Clinton will now attest, was a sentence one-word too long. But so what? The annunciation of this quickly repudiated claim did not alter Clinton’s direction or ability as a politician. If it is true that Pelosi lied about knowing whether enhanced interrogation techniques were used in 2003, her political priorities and abilities will nevertheless remain static. This is because the only test of a politician will be in their actions. The words and utterances of any political figure are as meaningless as the clothes they wear from one day to the next.

Johanna Neuman of the LA Times asks in the May 17^th Sunday Edition why former Vice President Dick Cheney doesn’t just go gently into the night—

Before delving into the substance of the real issue, which is the Obama Administration’s course of action since taking office and its’ ongoing criticism / blame of the Bush Administration’s policies / conduct and Dick Cheney’s counter condemnation thereof, any responsible writer has to condemn the Times for printing such a one sided distortion of the facts. It is exactly this kind of trash journalism that is destroying what was once a great newspaper. Let me give you one example: Neuman writes, “Dick Cheney has made the oft- repeated and truly incendiary assertion that Obama’s policies are making the country less safe from terrorism.” Really, is it “truly incendiary?” Any more so than the assertions’ of President Obama or Vice President Biden on the campaign trail or since taking office? But because Johanna Neuman and the LA Times want to discredit the statements of former Vice President Cheney, Neuman is allowed to use carefully crafted language to do so. This is a disgrace and should be called out as such.

In reality former Vice President Cheney has been on several talk shows defending the Bush Administration’s policies. In doing so he has stated that it is his belief that these policies kept America from being attacked again for a period of seven years subsequent to the 911 / attack. And he went on to say that the Obama Administration doing away with these policies, in his opinion made America less safe. Anyone watching Dick Cheney being interviewed would objectively conclude the following: Dick Cheney is a very smart, well spoken individual. The Bush Administration did in fact not allow another attack on America subsequent to 911. And that Dick Cheney believes what he is saying.

I have personally disagreed with the Bush Administration on a number of policies and actions, but for the good of the country both the media and the Obama Administration would be well served to listen to the former Vice President closely—in fact I can’t help but to wonder why he’s waited until leaving office to make himself so available. The Dick Cheney we’re now seeing is the Dick Cheney that debated Joe Lieberman to a tie, a debate that left everyone watching, wondering why the two Vice Presidential candidates weren’t the one’s running for President. So that Dick Cheney is back—GOOD.

Now let’s take a step back and look at some of the policy differences that have caused this argument and the LA Times to disgrace itself, again. The first major policy change by the Obama Administration to become part of the dispute was the President’s directive to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. The President believes that the facility makes America look bad to the rest of the world and therefore less safe. Former Vice President Cheney believes that the men held in Guantanamo Bay are the worst of the worst terrorists in the world—among these men is the mastermind of the 911 attacks on America. And he believes that we are safer with these men locked up in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely or at least until they face military tribunals that would determine their fates.

As of today the Obama Administration has not been able to produce a plan that would execute the President’s directive. There are a number of reasons for this, but suffice it to say the two largest obstacles are: other countries will not take these prisoners. And no state in the United States, thus far, has a citizenry that will accept these men into their communities. Also, it should be noted that Congress would not allocate funds to close this facility until a plan was presented to them. So, on this policy debate I think former Vice President Cheney has simply proven to be right.

The second policy that President Obama criticized the Bush Administration for, while he was running for office, was the U.S. policy of rendition, which he vowed to end once he was President because he believed this too made the U.S. less safe. And when candidate Obama became President Obama he did change this policy.

Again, Former Vice President Cheney said that this, change of policy, made the U.S. less safe. Who in this case is right and who is wrong? Let’s pause and clarify what rendition happens to be. When the U.S. captures a terrorist that it wishes to interrogate and desires to use torture to extract information it sends the person to a country that does not have laws against torturing people—this is rendition. President Obama stopped this practice for a couple of weeks when he took office, but then reinstituted it as a policy. So again, it would appear that on this former Vice President Cheney was right.

The third policy at the core of this dispute is enhanced interrogation techniques. President Obama ordered them stopped on the grounds that they are not effective and that they should be considered torture. Former Vice President Cheney countered that the justice department’s lawyers said that the techniques being used were not torture and that they were extremely effective in extracting information that saved thousands if not tens of thousands of American lives. This lead to a sub-dispute when President Obama released documents describing the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and did not also release documents, as described by the former Vice President, describing how many lives were saved by their use. The later part of this dispute can simply be settled by President Obama releasing the documents that former Vice President Cheney has requested. The fact that President Obama hasn’t done so would lead to an objective conclusion that again the former Vice President is right in his assertions—regardless these documents will eventually be available to the public and the truth will speak for itself.

The part of the policy dispute that is somewhat more difficult to understand and leads to dispute number four is that each administration seems to differ over what constitutes torture. At the core of this issue is water boarding or more simply put simulated drowning. On this, legal opinion’s aside, most reasonable people will agree that depriving another human being of oxygen until they give over the information being sought is torture. Because it does not leave lasting physical damage or end with the death of an interrogation subject—it should be considered the first level of torture or torture light, but it’s torture non-the-less. But in the end it does not apparently constitute a level of torture that is considered illegal.

Dispute number four is not between President Obama and former Vice President Cheney. In fact President Obama has stated publicly that the country should move forward and not start delving into the torture debate and or any of its’ criminal implications. But a number of Democrats have ignored the President and furthered the issue. And in pursuing this path it turns out that several top ranking Democrats were not only aware of, but approved of enhanced interrogation techniques. The Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi in particular seems to have been very aware of these measures, but claims that she and the Congress were mislead by the CIA. This, if it were to be true, would be another crime unto itself, but the CIA has documented that the Speaker was informed of what the techniques were and that they were being used. With respect to right and wrong on this I think it’s safe to say that both the President and the former Vice President are happy to let Speaker Pelosi go this one alone—meaning if the Bush Administration was wrong so were all of our top ranking leaders.

Finally, the argument between President Obama and former Vice President Cheney reached even domestic policy issues. President Obama is desirous that union organization votes be open ballot—meaning everyone would know how everyone else voted. Former Vice President Cheney believes that these votes should remain private so that pier pressure does not play a part in how someone votes. Clearly President Obama’s policy change would give unions more power. And clearly former Vice President Cheney thinks that they have enough. On this the former Vice President makes the argument that he, unlike President Obama, was a card-carrying member of a union for six years. (The former Vice President worked his way through college laying power cables, which required him to be a member of a union.) And based on his personal experience the current policy is as it should be. On this I personally agree with the former Vice President, but I’m sure there is a good argument for the other side.

So, should Dick Cheney go away quietly? Absolutely not. Just on the issues discussed in this blog he has proven to be right more than wrong. Do I personally have lots of issues with the decisions made by the Bush Administration and former Vice President Cheney? We all should. But we all do our country a disservice when we disrespect a man like Dick Cheney. His life is an American success story. He worked hard and had a family. He became one of the wealthiest men in America. And he chose to serve his country. Has he always been right? Have any of us always been right? When the former Vice President speaks, even if we don’t always agree, we should alway listen