Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 16, 2009

AN OLD, TIRED TALKING POINT.... Back in 2004, then-President Bush liked to tell campaign-rally audiences, "[John] Kerry said, and I quote, 'The war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering law-enforcement operation.' I disagree.... After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and supporters declared war on the United States of America -- and war is what they got."

The point was hardly subtle -- Bush and Republicans battle terrorists with the most powerful military in the world; Democrats fight al Qaeda with cops, lawyers, and intelligence-agency bureaucrats.

The argument has always been pretty ridiculous, but five years later, the talking point hasn't gone away. Here's Dick Cheney on CNN yesterday:

"...I think part of the difficulty here as I look at what the Obama administration is doing, we made a decision after 9/11 that I think was crucial. We said this is a war. It's not a law enforcement problem. Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem. You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail. The FBI would go to Oklahoma City and find the identification tag off the truck and go find the guy that rented the truck and put him in jail.

"Once you go into a wartime situation and it's a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they've got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources, everything you can in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you."

This does help explain why Dick Cheney's views on national security issues are so misguided.

As the former V.P. sees it, treating counter-terrorism as a "law-enforcement" issue is simply a responsive/reactive matter. Bad guy commits act, good guys finds bad guy, bad guy faces criminal charges. But that's a silly characterization of reality.

There's no great mystery here. If we want to stop al Qaeda and prevent terrorist attacks, law-enforcement operations, in conjunction with intelligence gathering, are what works. In January, for example, U.S. officials and Pakistani police arrested a key suspected al Qaeda terrorist. We didn't send in an Army battalion to capture Zabi ul Taifi, and we didn't invade Pakistan, we used a law-enforcement operation that probably saved a lot of lives. It was a great success, dependent on international cooperation, law enforcement, and intelligence gathering. It's exactly the kind of dynamic Dick Cheney perceives as ill-advised.

This shouldn't even be controversial. A federally-funded study by the Rand research center recently explained that to defeat al Qaeda, the United States needs to rely ... wait for it ... less on force and more on policing and intelligence gathering. Seth Jones, the lead author of the study and a Rand political scientist, told reporters, "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism. The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaeda, it just needs to shift its strategy."

Shift, that is, away from Dick Cheney's way of doing things.

Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Dick Cheney is a dick.

Posted by: David Bailey on March 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Convenient to call it a war, when solid police work by agencies could have averted the whole tragedy, but that wouldn't have been profitable for Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater would it?

Cheney is in the business of profiteering off of death. He is a ghoul.


Support Patrick Leahy's Truth and Reconcilliation !

Posted by: ImprisonCheney on March 16, 2009 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

Yet the Obama Administration continues to treat terrorism as in part a military problem, sending drones in to bomb suspected terrorist hideouts in Pakistan.

Cheney was wrong. The Obama administration is wrong to continue, and in fact escalate, the use of military attacks in supposed pursuit of terrorists within Pakistan.

Posted by: Vicki Linton on March 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney is aptly named. He truly is a dick.

If only law enforcement had been utilized after the 911 "flyers" were identified, especially after the daily briefing memo concerning bin Laden's quest to attack inside the US was handed to his former boss, all of this would have been unnecessary. If only..

Cheney is a dick prima classe!

Posted by: stevio on March 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Yet another example of Dick Cheney opening his pie-hole and being absolutely wrong. When was the last time he said anything that was the truth?

And now that he is out of office, why is he so eager to go on the TeeVee and talk to journalist? He sure didn't feel a responsibility towards open dialogue when he was on the Federal payroll.

Posted by: g on March 16, 2009 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney is a threat to the President's safety and to National Security, and should be thrown into jail. I would like to hear an argument as to why not.

Posted by: Ohioan on March 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

How can you be so wrong?? The way to secure America is CLEARLY to just kill as many brown people as possible!!

Posted by: No, No, NO! on March 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

And now that he is out of office, why is he so eager to go on the TeeVee and talk to journalist?

Because he no longer has the authority to continue war (and his profits), so he has to try to keep the bloodlust high so we DEMAND more war!

Posted by: Tree on March 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

I was a Brat in the seventies and an Air Force wife in the 80s - I flew in and out of Rome a dozen times in the middle of that decade. We took separate flights because my husband had to fly in uniform. We were in Germany when Baader Meinhof was active. Let's just say that terrorism was on my radar a good 25 years before September 11 happened. I have spent the time since then saying "excuse me, I hate to rain on your parade, but in the real world, you should look at how Germany handled it."

Then I duck. Because some jingoistic xenophobe who has never been anywhere throws something.

Posted by: Blue Girl on March 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

god damn dick cheney's shit-filled soul to hell.

Posted by: neill on March 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney is a typical Wyoming Cattle and Land Baron - Just send out your hired hands to, either, string 'em up or shoot 'em down. Then, have your hired courts and local newspapers support you. The Johnson County War killers hired by the Barons went free. Those at the top all died in their beds. Cheney will be no different.

Posted by: berttheclock on March 16, 2009 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

Captain Obvious here again......
Fighting terrorism is of course in the long run a matter of demonstrating the superiority of ole Thomas Jefferson's 233 year old ideas to tribal-religious-male dominant-oppresssion. Nudging countries toward democracy, communication, propaganda, increased standard of living from becoming a viable part of the world economy, education, etc. etc. The Israel Problem.... And maybe most importantly leading by example, which isn't exactly what we (and I really hate having to be personally counted in that "we" by being a citizen of this country) have been doing the past eight years. Angry Old Fascist Cheney does not get any of that but I think the new guys do. Good luck to them, and us.

Posted by: emjayay on March 16, 2009 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

And maybe if terrorists were treated and pursued as the criminals they are, instead of glorified as holy warriors and given the status of worthy adversaries, fewer misguided, poverty-stricken young men in the Middle East would choose terrorism. But then, Dick and his cronies wouldn't have all those splendid little wars to make money from. Makes you wonder who the real terrorists are, doesn't it?

Posted by: dalloway on March 16, 2009 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

The FBI would go to Oklahoma City and find the identification tag off the truck and go find the guy that rented the truck and put him in jail.

So finding the guy responsible, putting him in jail, and trying and convicting him is worse than the Bush-Cheney approach of not finding the guy responsible, not putting him in jail, and not trying and convicting him because....?

Posted by: Stefan on March 16, 2009 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Other than being an expert on avoiding military service, Cheney has no military expertise.

Posted by: qwerty on March 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

So in Cheney's view appropriate force means the US Army, Navy, AF, Marines, FBI, CIA, and its entire arsenal of conventional and nuclear weapons against the al Qaida boxcutter brigades. And the Bush/Cheney administration would argue that eight years is not reasonably enough time for the battle to be won.

So why would anyone listen to Dick Cheney?

Posted by: Capt Kirk on March 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Following the interview, CNN put this on their website as one of their Instapoll questions. 71% thought Cheney was full of it, probably not the response CNN was expecting.

Posted by: ericfree on March 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Well, to hear Gaffney tell it, they did take out McVeigh's mentor. But, Cheney believes a missile up the tail pipe of McV's fleeing vehicle would have been cheaper than a trial. Of course, not really knowing McV was the perp, the Oklahoma Air National Guard could have just shot up all highways surrounding Ok City, then proceed to a God will sort 'em out scenario.

Posted by: berttheclock on March 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Dick decided that he should be VP, and, essentially, nominated himself.

He has also been sort of, kind of, in un disclosed bunkers, running the USA for years.

Yeah, Bush was preznut, but Dick was pushing his agenda.

Dick's immortal words.... "Go F88K yourself" (I know what's best for the country)

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

That's all well and good. But how was Karl Rove ever going to create his permanant republican majority with boring police work? He needed a swaggering, cowboy talkin, war time pres.

Posted by: JoeW on March 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Its a mistake to accept the argument that the Bush/Cheney team *didn't* treat terrorism as a legal problem. They did. They just treated american law as thought it were a branch of warfare and, by extension, they proposed to treat all american citizens as potential enemy combatants if and when they came in contact with our legal system. In order to convert military enemies into non persons they had to significantly deform and violate our legal system. What that had to do with "protecting us" they can't say because while it may have protected us from some military attack (I doubt it, but arguendo) it significantly damaged our ability as citizens to be free from legalized attack by our own government.

aimai

Posted by: aimai on March 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

I see Cheney is still pimping the theories of Crazy Laurie Mylroie that Oklahoma City was really the work of Iraqi secret agents and McVeigh was just a dupe. Because if there's absolutely no evidence that the Iraqis had anything to do with the bombing, and a whole lot of proof that McVeigh and Nichols planned and carried it out together, that proves that Saddam personally drove the truck and then framed McVeigh and Nichols.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on March 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Blah blah 9/11, Blah blah 9/11

It was a major event but the Cheney/Bush "team" pissed away their opportunity to deal with Bin Laden. The current administration is left with their failed initiatives. True Iraq has improved, but they was the problem on 9/11.

Posted by: Cycledoc on March 16, 2009 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney is giving dick a bad name.

Posted by: Scott F. on March 16, 2009 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Where's Dick Cheney's indictment ?

Posted by: mljohnston on March 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

How many hundred more times are you going to do the "...wait for it..." line before you realize it stopped being funny several hundred times ago?

Posted by: steve s on March 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Why is that man still talking? Better yet, why is he still getting air time?
Shame on CNN!!!!

Posted by: marc on March 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

As Mylroje is an advisor to Frank Gaffney's think tank, not hard to understand why Gaffney tried to float the Saddam-McVeigh connection, last week, on Hardball.

Posted by: berttheclock on March 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

We all know how "shoot first, ask questions later" ends up.

Posted by: jen f on March 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

It's clear that Dick Cheney doesn't know shit - to include about police work.

The fact is that good police work is primarily about collecting intelligence and organizing to prevent crimes from happening first, and only after all that has failed, reacting to crimes that actually occur. The most recent well-known example is community policing. You deploy your police assets in such a way as to prevent crime rather than to hording them centrally and dispatching them to react as crimes actually occur.

That's not to say that a lot of jurisdictions don't get it wrong. And when its done right in small, local jurisdictions it is normally because such intelligence gatherings and dissemination is a function that can be performed by one or tow very experienced individuals. It's when you get to larger communities and jurisdictions that the intelligence function has to be defined separately, organized as its own department and properly respected in the police organization as a function, not as just a very wise old cop. Unfortunately, in cities and counties local politics can interfere with this working properly when the old police, knowledgeable management is replaced to suit ignorant political hacks who come into power.

In short, the wait-for-a-crime-then-react model doesn't work well in police work and crime fighting either. Cheney is right about that. It's just that that model is not what good police work consists of any more than good military work is about, and Cheney clearly doesn't know shit about good police work.

If good police work - to include Intelligence gathering and dissemination - had been properly conducted at the federal level by the Bush administration before 9/11, there is a strong likelihood that the 9/11 attacks would have never occurred. That was another area in which the Bushies, conservatives and Republicans were (and remain)incompetent to govern.

Posted by: Rick B on March 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

berttheclock on March 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Isn't that what Cheney directed the US Air arms to do to the road North from Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War? Kill them all and let God sort them out?

I'd say our Dick has a pattern of ignorant and deadly behavior when he has power. The excellent book "Angler" certainly seems to suggest it.

He certainly has no record of comprehension or understanding of what is really going on or knowledge of how to manipulate events and get what he wants out of them. (As opposed to manipulating people and forcing them to do what he demands." Has he ever demonstrated any awareness of what went wrong when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and New Orleans?

He just uses the "caveman" approach. "Ugh. Me not like. Me stomp, kill."

Posted by: Rick B on March 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

There are so many examples of intelligence gathering and apprehension of actual, real terrorists by foreign governments (Britain, Germany, Spain, Pakistan,...) while Cheney has been successful in stopping a bunch of losers from taking a bus from Miami to Chicago and blowing up the Sears Bldg, and a couple of guys from attacking an Army basic training camp and killing thousands with their assault rifles, and ... The list of Three Stooge schemes that the Dick has prevented goes on and on. If he considers this to be a success, no wonder we are in the mess we are.

This jerk has been so wrong so often in the past that I don't understand why he even gets air time anymore. Can anyone think of something he's gotten right at anytime in his career, public and private, starting when he worked for Reagan?

Posted by: TExas Aggie on March 16, 2009 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

It had to be a military problem because Cheney wanted to use the military INSIDE of the USA, which is prohibited by law. Obviously the FBI and local law enforcement has enough manpower to deal with any terrorist activity in the USA, but Cheney wanted to use the military so he could also use them to round up enemies of the state (any dissenters). It was part of Cheney's plan to turn the USA into a military dictatorship. Dictator Dick.

Posted by: James G on March 16, 2009 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

That is all diplomacy-speak for:

I decide who the "bad guys" are. Then we kill them.

Posted by: Homer on March 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly


Place Your Link Here

--- Links ---

Boarding Schools

Addiction Treatment Centers

Alcohol Treatment Center

Bad Credit Loan

Long Distance Moving Companies

FREE Phone Card

Flowers

Personal Loan

Addiction Treatment

Phone Cards

Less Debt = Financial Freedom

Addiction Treatment Programs