No Comment — September 1, 2011, 2:56 pm

Putting the Question to Dick Cheney

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has just released his memoir of the Bush years, entitled In My Time. The volume is exactly what you might expect: a full-throated defense of the Cheney shogunate. But while it leaves little doubt about who was behind many of the key national security decisions in the Bush years, it is remarkably quiet about a number of matters Cheney would perhaps rather not recollect.

I recently spoke with Dan Froomkin, senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post, for a column of his in which he proposed choice questions for reporters to ask Cheney about his book. Here are seven I’d suggest, some of which appear in Froomkin’s article:

(1) Someone appears to have gone to great lengths to falsify documents creating the impression that Niger was selling yellowcake uranium to Iraq. The documents were peddled by Italian intelligence to their American counterparts. La Repubblica‘s Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d’Avanzo traced these forgeries, which played a significant role in the bogus case for the war with Iraq, and found that Michael Ledeen, a neoconservative strategist with links to you, had been dealing with Italian intelligence at the time these papers were floated. Did you discuss the yellowcake papers with Ledeen? What did you know about the yellowcake papers? Why were you so personally alarmed when the fraud surrounding them was exposed?

(2) When the CIA’s envoy to Niger, Joe Wilson, blew the lid off the yellowcake scam in a New York Times op-ed, you scribbled a note on your copy of the Times to the effect that he was sent on a “junket.” The note suggests that you knew Wilson’s wife was CIA agent Valerie Plame, and that you viewed Wilson and Plame as hostile to the administration. Did you direct your chief of staff, Scooter Libby, to blow Plame’s cover as a covert CIA agent?

(3) As CEO of Halliburton, you installed Jack Stanley as head of the KBR unit and set him off to secure a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) contract in Nigeria. Criminal probes later showed that Halliburton paid $182 million in bribes to Nigerian officials to secure a $6 billion LNG project. How could $182 million in corrupt payments have been made without your knowledge as CEO of the company?

(4) In the final days before the arrival of the Obama team, the Bush Justice Department rushed to finalize a settlement with Halliburton under which the company paid a fine but you were not singled out for mention or punishment. What communications did you or your staff have with the DOJ figures handling the matter?

(5) You admit to having had “a beer with lunch” before you shot Harry Whittington in the face on a Saturday afternoon in 2006. Was that all the alcohol you consumed before that accident?

(6) During the tense days leading up to the Russian-Georgian War of August 2008, you were in communication with the government of Georgia. Did you suggest that the U.S. military would be available to stop any Russian invasion of Georgia if a war were to break out?

(7) In November 2001, as the city of Kunduz in Afghanistan was encircled, did you tell the Pakistanis that they were free to send in military transports to Kunduz to remove their personnel? Did you do this against the advice of CIA and DOD intelligence?

A few other essential reads regarding the Cheney memoir:

In an interview with Amy Goodman, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, states that the book was “written out of fear, fear that one day someone will ‘Pinochet’ Dick Cheney.” This, it strikes me, is indeed the very heart of the matter. Cheney wants to rally his political base to his own defense.

Writing at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick explains why Cheney really does need to be prosecuted for his role in orchestrating the Bush era’s torture programs:

[T]he real lesson of In My Time is not that Cheney “got away with it,” though I suppose he did. It’s an admonishment to rest of us that the law really matters. The reason Cheney keeps saying that torture is “legal” is because he has a clutch of worthless legal memoranda saying so. Cheney gets away with saying torture is “legal” even though it isn’t because if it were truly illegal, he and those who devised the torture regime would have faced legal consequences — somewhere, somehow. That’s the meaning of the “rule of law.” That, rather than whether America should torture people, is what we should glean from the Cheney book.

And Bart Gellman, the nation’s number one Cheney watcher, bores down deep into the book at Time magazine’s website, examining what happened on the evening Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card went to visit a seriously ailing and sedated John Ashcroft in his hospital room, only to find FBI director Robert Mueller and Acting Attorney General James Comey there to confront them. Gellman finds that Cheney was clearly wrong on some points and dubious on others. Behind the paywall in Time‘s September 12 issue, Gellman offers a still deeper fact check of the book. Most Washington politicians polish their accounts to put themselves in the best possible light. But Cheney’s work is of a different nature. It’s fundamentally an exercise in historical revisionism.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Amount Arizona’s Red Feather Lodge offered to pay to reopen the Grand Canyon during the 2013 government shutdown:

$25,000

A Brazilian cat gave birth to a dog.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today