CNN Gets Snookered By Cheney’s Masterful Obfuscation
I’ve noted this before, but Dick Cheney is as masterful as any Washington hand at using precise languate to obfuscate. And today the old master completely had his way with poor, hapless CNN.
Look at how CNN is now reporting Cheney’s claims of vindication today:
Cheney says documents show interrogations prevented attacks
Former Vice President Dick Cheney says documents released Monday support his view that harsh interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects prevented attacks and yielded crucial information about al Qaeda.
Actually, no, Cheney didn’t claim that the newly released documents showed that torture “prevented attacks” at all. Here’s the Cheney statement that this story is based on:
“The documents released Monday clearly demonstrated that the individuals subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda,” Cheney said in a written statement. “This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks.”
Cheney is not claiming a causal relationship between torture and the intelligence gleaned from interrogations. Rather, he’s saying that the same individuals who were tortured also happened to yield the most important evidence about Al Qaeda. He’s not saying that the docs proved torture was responsible for producing that info.
There’s a reason Cheney worded his statement this carefully: The documents don’t prove torture worked, as he claimed. Don’t believe me? Go to paragraph 11 of this New York Times article, which says the same.
Look, this is the kind of parsing that would illicit howls of indignation when Bill Clinton did it. Indeed, it makes Clintonian parsing look like a Jack and Jill story. CNN, you’re getting played for chumps, time to step up…
****************************************
Update: Wow, this is contagious! Justin Elliott points out that Politico got hoodwinked by the same Cheney ruse.
Update II: More on this whole debate, including new stuff from CNN, MSNBC, and Politico, is right here.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Oh boy………but why are we surprised.
Dudge Report is next…or, should I say, Fudge Report.
Fudge Report actually was a real Web site…the DSCC ran it during the 2006 elections. It was the brainchild of Phil Singer, who later went on to work for Hillary in 2008.
Cheney is very good at spin, I agree. But CNN ought to be able to unspin that with no trouble. So, either CNN wants to go along for some reason or the collective IQ at CNN doesn’t top 110.
I don’t think they’re getting played. I believe someone at CNN is fully complicit in trying to put one over on us.
Greg and all – seen this?
”
Cheney
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
*
Share
*
Print
*
Comments
In a statement Monday evening, former Vice President Dick Cheney accused the Obama White House of politicizing the Justice Department and insisted that a new report on interrogation policies by the CIA proved the efficacy of torture. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/25/cheney-accuses-obama-of-p_n_268279.html
well, this is going to get predictably nasty.
Ack! I really don ‘t mean to post the irrelevant stuff around the story. I’m just careless.
Just to be clear, Mr. Mike Allen at Politico was first to take on the role of PR man for Dick Cheney — converting Cheney’s actual lame statement into something else. And of course, he didn’t bother looking into the 2004 report itself to see if it was accurate. Then CNN pretty much copied it word for word.
Cheney takes it half way, hands off to his media buddies who complete the play.
Yes Greg!! This is what your blog is for. Excellent job of narrowing down the parsing. There is no reason why a man with 5 deferments from military service, who got his start working with Nixon, should ever be considered a super tough, macho, manly patriot whose words guide the future of this country. No reason whatsoever. It’s either crush this now, or lolly-dag with it forever. Let’s crush it now.
@Greg
“Hoodwinked”? You really think they don’t understand the game they’re playing?
㍴␆ ㏌ ㎹
Dick Cheney HIMSELF backed off the claim that the aggressive techniques produced the info. After Levin said Cheney was FOS, Cheney came out with a clarification saying it was the PROGRAM that brought out the intel.
Dick C.:
CNN has gone in the toilet since Ted Turner sold it. So I think CNN is complicit.
It’s _elicit_ howls of indignation. Only if indignation is outlawed do the howls become illicit.
Here’s what Cheney said:
“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.
“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven’t announced this up until now, I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.
“And I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”
From that point forward, it appears to me that Greg S, Josh, Sullivan, etc began saying that “Cheney said docs proved torture works.”
I don’t see that in above quote. I read Cheney saying that the “program” yielded valuable intelligence. It seems to me that his comments right now are in agreement with his earlier comments.
I could be wrong, and I asked for this before, but could someone provide the quote where Cheney says the docs will reveal that torture worked? It looks as if Cheney has always been careful to assert that the program worked and it has been others who have claimed that Cheney said torture worked.
You notice he didn’t even claim they got the information AFTER the detainees were tortured. Forget the causal relationship, he wasn’t even going for a chronological one!
sbj said – “From that point forward, it appears to me that Greg S, Josh, Sullivan, etc began saying that “Cheney said docs proved torture works.””
Please. For the obvious legal liability reasons, he will not ever describe what was done under his office’s orders as “torture”. For the obvious propaganda reasons, he will mount a rhetorical argument (precisely as you see it above in your quotations) which implies that everything that was done (including the unmentioned torture and the unmentioned but numerous homicides) as necessary, therefore both morally and legally peachy.
Play this honestly, sbj, or don’t bother.
And, as Think Progress notes…
HANNITY: And secondly, why is it important that those interrogations took place? I mean, the ones they were talking about were sleep deprivation, waterboarding, putting insects into small, confined areas and telling them they were deadly insects. [...]
CHENEY: It worked. It’s been enormously valuable in terms of saving lives, preventing another mass casualty attack against the United States. … And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.
That’s a tad more specific on Cheney claiming that torture (I admit here that he didn’t speak to the power drills, the threats to murder the babies and rape the mommies though I’m sure Hannity was just about to ask when it was time for an ad).
(ps…I’m looking for a personal editor. She should be attractive.)
@bernie: You misunderstand the “game” I am playing. I contend that Cheney has always said that the EIT program (you can call it the terror program if you like) – the PROGRAM and ALL of its techniques in total – was responsible for the capture of terrorists and the thwarting of attacks. The docs Cheney wanted revealed – appear to support that contention. (I’m not referring to the CIA IG report.) I’m really not understanding those who want to claim that ALL of the now-outlawed techniques – constitute torture. Seems to me that Greg et al are claiming that Cheney specifically said that the docs he wanted revealed would prove that waterboarding provided valuable intelligence and stopped attacks. He didn’t say that (see above quote). It seems to me that Cheney claimed that intelligence was gained through the use of EITs – all of them, he did not differentiate waterboarding from a slam against a wall. Now, do you want to argue that ALL of the now-discontinued EITs constituted torture?
@bernie: And why do you want to conflate the abuses (rape threat, murder threat) with the legally sanctioned EITs?
Tena says, “But CNN ought to be able to unspin that with no trouble.”
Exactly – even a “Shape of Earth: Views Differ” press should be able to do a close reading of this sort of parsing – hell, it should be right in their wheelhouse. If they can’t do this, and policy details bore them to death, then exactly what skills do they bring to the game?
So either they’re incomprehensibly useless, worthless, and dumb, or as Tena and others suggest, they were perfectly happy to pretend to be played.
It hardly matters which explanation is true.
Politico has now rewritten the key parqagraph in their story, explaining that “some readers said the excerpt misconstrued the original”. Apparently their reding comprehension skills are not up to recognizing they in fact did “misconstrue” Cheney’s statement. Or their ethical standards aren’t up to admitting they got played.
# sbj | August 25th, 2009 at 02:58 pm
@bernie: And why do you want to conflate the abuses (rape threat, murder threat) with the legally sanctioned EITs?
No, sbj, the real question is: “why does Cheney want to do this?”
@Max: Huh?
Never said that there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda either
It is “elicit”, not “illicit”!!!
And the statement supporting your article is in the 13th graph, not the 11th!
That all said, excellent catch!
Greg:
You’re inferring a bit, too. Cheney is not saying that the tortured gave up “the most important information” about Al Qaeda, just that they provided the bulk of it. Put another way, his statement yesterday is that “most of what we found out about Al Qaeda came from people we tortured.”
@sbj: You’re asking for a quote where Cheney says that the “documents show that torture worked.” It’s right there in the statement you quoted. You might not remember the situation in which he issued that statement. He was explicitly coming out against the assertion that torture didn’t result in any good intelligence, so his words need to be viewed in that context.
“…They didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort,” he said. He meant the “enhanced interrogation” efforts. “And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity.” Again, he promised a report that showed that “this activity” (techniques that most people would describe as ‘torture’) resulted in specific intelligence. He was implicitly and explicitly saying that torture was effective and that classified reports showed it. He wasn’t being truthful.
CNN: Co-opted News Network or Corrupted News Network: take your choice. They are so busy giving themselves kudos for being whatever that they forgot Ted Turner’s original mission statement. They never have time to deal with an issue because their advertising and profits are so important. Watch Rick Sanchez. He always has something vital to tell you…but first…
@skippy: But the two reports that Cheney requested DO show that the use of EITs resulted in intelligence and stopped attacks.
Greg, with all respect, you’re getting a bit snookered yourself by giving any weight whatsoever to the issue of whether torture ‘worked.’
Call out Cheney’s lies, sure, but AFAIK ‘effective’ torture is every bit as illegal as ‘ineffective’ torture.
Any editor who cannot fully engage the meaning of an utterance and put it into relevant context of the story should be fired, for such a display belies the ability of such editor to be discerning enough to collect a paycheck!
I’m awaiting CNN’s action, but I know CNN is incapable of separating the Bull **** from the actual circumstance simply because it is not a bona fide news network – it’s just a second rate cable entertainment network! -Kevo
It really is impossible to believe that CNN, Politico and the rest of the media aren’t engaged in deliberate obfuscation at this point. There’s no way this many people who are alleged professionals can be this stupid all the time, and all the same way to boot. The only question is, what are we going to do about it?
sbj – sorry, I’m typing between customers
“the total program was responsible for thwarting attacks”.
This claim, in its complete failure to differentiate, merely obfuscates and effectively excuses anything and everything done, and I think you know that. It as unhelpful and disingenous as if one were to forward the claim that the use of napalm or cluster bombs on civilians, a mere portion of an overall war, ought to be ignored.
“I’m really not understanding those who want to claim that ALL of the now-outlawed techniques – constitute torture.”
One would have to compare each to existing American and international laws of course to establish legality. But why were they outlawed?
And as regards “legally sanctioned”, that in itself is meaningless where a standard such as Yoo’s applies which effectively was that if the President gave his OK on it, then the legal power of his office made it legal (as in his famous response that crushing the testicles of a child in front of a parent may well have legal sanction under US constitutional law.
@sbj, that’s where you (and Cheney) are wrong — the reports showed that they tortured people and that they got intelligence from people, but not that the torture produced intelligence. News reports summarize the document as coming to ‘the conclusion that, while CIA interrogations had produced useful intelligence, the “effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained” is not “so easily measured.”‘
@skippy: You are quoting from the CIA IG report, NOT one of the two reports that Cheney requested.
@sbj Can you point me to the documents to which Cheney was referring when he said they backed up his claim that torture works?
@skippy:
http://washingtonindependent.com/56310/obtained-the-cia-documents-dick-cheney-says-vindicate-torture
And Cheney claimed that EITs worked. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
@sbj thanks, that’s interesting, but can you be a little more specific? I’m not sure where in those 27 pages it says that torturing someone got valuable intelligence. You might be referring to something that I’d miss in scanning the report.
It looks like those reports say what Cheney’s saying – that the CIA got intelligence from people in captivity. I can’t find anywhere that they say that torture resulted in this intelligence.
You do understand that this whole debate is over a semantic question? You aren’t going to find the word torture in the first report, and the report makes no effort to differentiate between so-called standard interrogation and EIT. I thought we were well beyond that…
@skippy: On the other hand, the CIA IG report does indicate that the EITs may have been successful:
In an interview, the DCI said he believes the use of EITs has proven to be extremely valuable in obtaining enormous amounts of critical threat information from detainees who had otherwise believed they were safe from any harm in the hands of Americans.
Pt. 223:
Prior to the use of EITs, Abu Zubaydah provided information for [redacted] intelligence reports. Interrogators applied the waterboard to Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times during August 2002. During the period between the end of the use of the waterboard and 30 April 2003, he provided information for approximately [redacted] additional reports. It is not possible to say definitely that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah’s increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative. [Redacted].
Pt. 224:
With respect to Al-Nashiri [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant. However, after being moved [redacted] Al-Nashiri was thought to be withholding information. Al-Nashiri subsequently received additional EITs, [redacted] but not the waterboard. The Agency then determined Al-Nashiri to be “compliant.” Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information. However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and [redacted] as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of EITs.
Pt. 225:
On the other hand, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete. As a means of less active resistance, at the beginning of their interrogation, detainees routinely provide information that they known is already known. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad received 183 applications of the waterboard in March 2003.
Quoting you: “But the two reports that Cheney requested DO show that the use of EITs resulted in intelligence and stopped attacks.”
Citation please!
(ignore previous post)
OK, so you realize that in every case the writer above admits that they don’t know if EITs (aka torture) resulted in whatever intelligence was gleaned from the incarceree. You wrote that the reports “DO show that the use of EITs resulted in intelligence”, while the people reading the unredacted reports aren’t ready to make that claim. I think Cheney’s looking like he’s full of ****. Again.
If torture worked, then the secrets that the got out of of those top terrorists should have led to their bosses, and then torture of them, would have led to their bosses, and eventually you would have tortured all the way up to having the information that led to the capture, or killing of Bin Laden, and his crazy Egyptian Doctor Sidekick. None of that happened, so Cheney and CIA are lying once again, like they did with all their “Slam Dunk” WMD rubbish.
@skippy:
“Let’s review. Abu Zubaydah gave up some information before the use of EITs. But “since the use of the waterboard…Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative,” and gave up even more intelligence. Al Nashiri provided mostly historical information in the short time before EITs were employed. “However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning…” And “accomplished resistor” Khalid Shaykh Muhammad provided mostly useless information before the application of EITs. Afterwards, he “provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists” – so much information, in fact, that he was regarded as the “most prolific” intelligence source.
Reasonable people can – and do – disagree about the morality of using EITs. But only the most accomplished resister could continue to claim that they were not effective.”
“CNN, you’re getting played for chumps, time to step up…”
Might be true if CNN was comprised of a bunch of first timers who had never seen spin. CNN lied. They mislead their viewers and they did it on purpose.
What is “EIT” **** about?
It is called “TORTURE.”
Pearlstein just wrote an article at WaPO that touched on what I mentioned earlier up; that being the shameless lies and untruths of the GOP’s arguments.
They all can be easily debunked and American’s, unless willing to, could have a well coordinated message hammered into them that points out all these lies and distortions. If American’s that have been tricked into believing the lies find out they are being lied to for political purposes, I would think they would quickly change any sort of loyalty or faith they might have in those lying to them.
I stayed at a hotel in Wellington, NZ a couple of days ago. The TV broadcast CNN, but it had no audio. I went back to the reception desk to see if they could fix it. “CNN has no audio” I said to the lovely young woman. Distractedly she looked up and said, “yeah, that’s the best way to watch that channel.” The wisdom of those Kiwis.
I have to agree that CNN seems intentionally to be helping Cheney out. The last couple of nights when the issue came up during “The Situation Room”, CNN had an obvious Bush hack, David Frum, denounce the release of the torture memos and the decision to launch an investigation. Why can’t CNN discuss these issues with more objective people, who can at least give a balanced view. All Frum did was give us more Bush talking points spin. CNN is showing itself to be despicable and lacking in journalistic integrity.
@sbj — LOL! you seemed reasonable until that last post. why cherry-pick half-quotes when you posted the full quote earlier yesterday which undercuts your position? An obvious example is with Abu Zubaydah. From the report, he was uncooperative so they waterboarded him 83 times. 83 times! Then, at some point after the last time, he gave up information. The report states: “It is not possible to say definitely that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah’s increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.” And you only quote the last part: “Since the use of the waterboard [, however,] Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative” and claim that it proves the waterboarding was effective.
I need to use all-caps here: The CIA analyst him or herself WASN’T SURE THAT WATERBOARDING WAS EFFECTIVE. Obviously there wasn’t a moment of “OK, enough, I’ll tell you what you need to know!” Obviously you’re wrong to draw the conclusion that this passage confirms that EITs were successful. I’m impressed that you were willing to do the research; most people don’t. But don’t make the mistake of just reading the parts you want to read and pretending the other parts don’t exist.
We’re probably several Internet Years away from reaching down and successfully communicating to the marginally inquisitive, and so, the majority. But Cheney’s prosecution would abridge the matter, snapping millions of authoritarian-worshiping sheep to attention like the good students they should have been ten years ago.
It’s not just about torture, but subversion, treason, preemption, and theft of the Hitlerian Kind.
Today, the rank and file Republican hasn’t a clue about what they actually brought to power. Twice. No, not a clue. They are instructed to point out and scream, OBAMA is a FASCIST!! _and_ COMMIE!!
http://www.light-to-dark.com/War_Criminal_One.html
Not one damn clue.
Hi, I