About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media uncritically aired Cheney claim that "EITs" were used after other techniques failed

May 22, 2009 9:14 am ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Four evening news programs uncritically aired discredited claims Dick Cheney made suggesting that detainees provided information after -- and only after -- "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used.

113 Comments

In May 21 reports on former Vice President Dick Cheney's speech that day at the American Enterprise Institute, the CBS Evening News, Fox News' Special Report, CNN's The Situation Room, and ABC's World News all uncritically aired discredited claims Cheney made suggesting that detainees provided information after "enhanced interrogation techniques" were used, and had not provided it before being subjected to those methods. As Media Matters for America has noted, former FBI agent Ali Soufan -- who interrogated Abu Zubaydah -- testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 13 about the success of standard interrogation methods, which he contrasted with "ineffective" harsh techniques.

The CBS Evening News and The Situation Room uncritically aired Cheney's claim of harsh interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration: "The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts had failed."

Similarly, World News and Special Report uncritically aired Cheney's claim later in the speech that, with regard to "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and a few others": "[W]ith many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all." After airing the clip from Cheney's speech, Fox News' chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle reported that Cheney "said enhanced interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed and that they were legal, essential, justified, and successful."

Soufan stated in his written testimony that "the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again." He continued: "It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective, and play directly into the enemy's handbook."

Soufan pointed to "[t]he case of the terrorist Abu Zubaydah" as "a good example of where the success of the Informed Interrogation Approach can be contrasted with the failure of the harsh technique approach." Soufan then presented a "timeline" of the Zubaydah interrogation, which he said showed that "many of the claims made in the memos about the success of the enhanced techniques are inaccurate." He added: "For example, it is untrue to claim Abu Zubaydah wasn't cooperating before August 1, 2002. The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him."

Soufan also testified about other uses and successes of the informed interrogation approach. He stated that his interrogation of Osama bin Laden's former chief bodyguard, Nasser Ahmad Nasser al-Bahri, also known as Abu Jandal, was "done completely by the book (including advising him of his rights)" and that, from it, "we obtained a treasure trove of highly significant actionable intelligence."

From the May 21 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

BILL PLANTE (White House correspondent): Answering what he called the president's mischaracterization of his administration's war policy, former Vice President Cheney began by defending the use of harsh interrogation tactics.

CHENEY: The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts had failed. They prevented the violent death of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people.

PLANTE: Cheney argued that the proof of the strategy is in the result.

From the May 21 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

JONATHAN KARL (senior congressional correspondent): Cheney said the interrogations accomplished their one and only goal: getting specific information on terrorist plans.

CHENEY: Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogation. To call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murders as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.

KARL: Cheney offered an unapologetic defense of the CIA's most controversial tactic.

CHENEY: You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, who's also boasted about his beheading of Daniel Pearl. We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about Al Qaeda. We didn't know about Al Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

KARL: He was especially critical of President Obama's decision to release top-secret memos detailing the CIA's interrogation program.

From the May 21 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

DAN LOTHIAN (White House correspondent): Standing in front of a copy of the Constitution, President Obama delivered a defense for his national security policy, from banning so-called enhanced interrogations like waterboarding to closing the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

OBAMA: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantánamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.

LOTHIAN: While the president admitted some detainees could wind up in U.S. prisons, he tried to calm fears that it would put Americans at risk.

OBAMA: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security.

LOTHIAN: But both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill want proof. They rejected funding to close Gitmo until more details about what will be done with all detainees are provided. In his speech, the president did not fill in all the blanks. But he did blame the Bush administration for creating a, quote, "mess."

OBAMA: Our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight. And all too often, our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.

LOTHIAN: In what felt like a Republican response, former Vice President Dick Cheney struck back in his own speech, defending harsh interrogation techniques.

CHENEY: The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts had failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do.

LOTHIAN: And criticizing the Obama administration for trying to close Gitmo without a plan.

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

ANGLE: President Obama argued that enhanced techniques were not necessary, were illegal, and did not work.

OBAMA: I know some have argued that brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.

CHENEY: You've heard endlessly about waterboarding. It happened to three terrorists.

ANGLE: Including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the planner of 9-11. Cheney didn't flinch on enhanced interrogation, saying he was a strong proponent.

CHENEY: We didn't know about Al Qaeda's plans, but Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

ANGLE: He said enhanced interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed and that they were legal, essential, justified, and successful. But President Obama sees another effect.

OBAMA: They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by eweston8542983 (May 22, 2009 10:00 am ET)
      3  
      Yer Republican party, creating a new image of itself...no wait.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (May 22, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
        4  
        And the corporate press, dinosaur scribes for Cheney's lies. They'll eventually have to give way to some actual reporting of facts. Thankfully we have the Daily show.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (May 22, 2009 10:13 am ET)
      3  
      Hey, when DID Cheney become co-president, anyway?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (May 22, 2009 11:39 am ET)
        4  
        He needs to take the millions he made off the war and go live happily in obscurity where he belongs. America is busily trying to forget the mess this man and his cohorts made.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by markbfoot199 (May 22, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
          11
        The day that Obama was too weak to be President.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (May 22, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
          4  
          What day was that? And what event transpired that led you to this belief?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (May 22, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
              8
            The day he started bowing and aplogizing.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 22, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
              3  
              Post an apology.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 22, 2009 8:43 pm ET)
              5  
              I forgot,we never do anything we have to apologize for.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 22, 2009 10:31 pm ET)
              4  
              You mean when he acted like an ethical human being instead of an arrogant ignorant Bush clone? Sure that would make sense to the Limborg
              Report Abuse
            • Author by teabaggers ♥ NUTS (May 25, 2009 4:23 am ET)
                 
              better than bush making out (w/ saudi king) and lying.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 22, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
          6  
          Too weak? Weakness is giving in and using torture and not living up to the ideals of this great country. Weakness is taking shortcuts when you can find the same result legally. Weakness is making a speech like this when you're out of office. Weakness is looking right into the camera and saying the United States doesn't torture when you know full well we used techniques on some of these people that we brought war crimes charges on after WWII. Weakness is calling people "terrorists" without proving it and holding them indefinitely because you aren't sure how to deal with them. Weakness is championing the Vietnam war and taking five deferrals because you had "other priorities." That's weakness, Mark.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by markbfoot199 (May 22, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
            1 6
            Fried, no Fried that is having a Set, willing to go beyond the call of duty to save lives. I just hope that when the next attack comes, and it will, that we do not find out later that people we had in custody knew about the attack, but we were to weak to push and get the information, since having tea and cookies just was not cutting it. Weak is not admitting that these are Terrorist, that these scum of the would rather cut your head off then give you the right to speak your mind. Just be glad that individuals unlike yourself are out defending our country.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by friedbergboy1422 (May 22, 2009 3:08 pm ET)
              4 1
              Bull. Torture hasn't work, doesn't work and won't work. Read the links below about torture producing wild goose chases.

              I'd bet you money you would admit to anything I wanted to hear to stop waterboarding.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by smarshall1432997 (May 22, 2009 7:56 pm ET)
                4 1
                The most important fact is that even with former VP Cheney and the Republicans proudly saying that torture worked by getting important information from the Terrorists, "NO" information was obtained in getting Osama Bin Laden, the master mind of 911. Waterboarding someone for 83 times in 30 days should have gotten former VP Cheney and the Republicans something on Osama Bin Laden and his group, right? Former President Bush shut down the torture program in 2004 because torture did "NOT" produce Osama Bin Laden like former VP Cheney said it would do. And now, former VP Cheney is proud of the torture program that continues to have Osama Bin Laden roaming free somewhere in the Middle East. Hmmm, I'm confused.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 22, 2009 10:34 pm ET)
              4  
              In other words you think what you have been told to think no matter how dumb it is. The people we have in custody we have had for YEARS. Exactly WHAT could they possibly know about what is going to happen in the future. We get that you have no decency and in your cowardice just want people tortured. Not that anyone can SHOW it makes you safer but you FEEL safer knowing brown people that scare you are being tortured. You are an embarassment to REAL Americas. The kind that care about our values. The kind that are NOT cowards. The kind who think American values are worth more than YOUR feelings
              Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (May 23, 2009 3:55 pm ET)
              1  
              Mark, if you think about your stance for even a few seconds, you will see that you are cowardly. You have no principles that cannot be sacrificed as soon as someone tells you to be scared. That is pure weakness and the ultimate in phony bravado and cowardice. Grow a set!
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 23, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
                   
                Exactly. When are these conservatives going to Cowboy up?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (May 24, 2009 8:49 pm ET)
                 
              I'd say that the majority of those who've put their asses on the line defending this country adhere to the oath they took to uphold the constitution and to abide by the Geneva Conventions.



              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (May 22, 2009 10:30 pm ET)
          2  
          That day never happened. Your brainwashed idiocy is noted
          Report Abuse
        • Author by phredicles (May 23, 2009 1:03 am ET)
             
          Weak? Oh, I guess you mean like when Obama just recently promised our troops that he wouldn't put them into harm's way without good cause. Clearly, what kinda wussy pansy talk is that? Orderin' mass carnage, death an' destruction for no good reason is what bein' the deciderer is all about, heh heh heh.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Missouri Democrat (May 23, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
           
        The day he picked himself to be VP and he knew he could run roughshod over Bush.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (May 22, 2009 10:21 am ET)
      2 15
      Looks like Cheney is handing Obama his lunch, the best part of all of this is that Cheney is showing strength, because he is not running for an office. That is the problem with our politicians, they are always looking for a vote. (both sides) Just stand up for what you beleive and if you get the votes good, if not then move on. Obama has changed his mind so often you wonder what his views ever are these days.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (May 22, 2009 11:36 am ET)
        12 3
        You may consider such egregious dishonesty to be a showing of strength. I do not. Cheney is frantically trying to rewrite history and distort his own legacy. How dare he lecture us on keeping us safe when it was his regime that was happily aloof when 9/11 happened.

        In his speech, Obama presented the position of his predecessors honestly and truthfully. Cheney simply lied and lied and lied.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by markbfoot199 (May 22, 2009 1:30 pm ET)
          2 9
          Pete, see Cheney did not lie, he just came out and told you what they did and they are proud of what they did to same American Lives. These terrorist only knows strength, when a President rolls around the world kissing rings, bowing down to others and apologizing to nations, show he is weak.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (May 22, 2009 1:36 pm ET)
            5 1
            Yes, he did lie.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 22, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
            8  
            Yeah, cuase I'd much rather attack a guy surrounded by loyal friends and supporters than a guy standing by himself who everyobody hates. You're a moron. You understand neither the tactocs of diplomacy nor war. Neither did Bush or Cheney. If you don't know what you're talking about, it's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (May 22, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
        8 1
        markbfoot199,

        Curious...

        To what speech are you referring too... the one where Cheney is trying to rewrite history... or the one where Cheney is trying to rewrite history... or the one where Cheney is trying to rewrite history?

        It seems that every time Cheney gives a speech... it nothing but non-stop attempts at rewriting history or that it is anyone's fault than his own for things he helped destroy.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 22, 2009 1:41 pm ET)
        6  
        Yeah... handing Obama his lunch. And apparently he's serving Republican Credability aug rotten, with a side of their electoral hopes in 2010 in 2012 election sauce.

        Can you suggest a good whine to go with that? I'm sure you've got something in stock.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (May 22, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
        7  
        Not once, in any of these statements, did Cheney say that the 'enhanced interrogation techniques' lead to actionable intelligence. Cheney's being very careful with his words when he speaks, so you have to be very careful in listening to or reading them. Go back and read them again.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (May 22, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
        4  
        I'm not sure I've ever heard the phrase "handing (someone) their lunch". I think you mean "eating Obama's lunch".
        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (May 22, 2009 11:12 pm ET)
          2  
          I've heard of handing someone their ass. Generally not in a positive context. Not sure of its applicability in this case.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (May 22, 2009 11:13 pm ET)
             
          I've heard of handing someone their ass. Generally not in a positive context. Not sure of its applicability in this case.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (May 23, 2009 12:44 am ET)
            1  
            I'm quite sure that's the source of the other half of that piecework phrase. I guess we should just feel lucky that he didn't use the other halves of those phrases together.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 22, 2009 8:48 pm ET)
        2  
        CHENEY isn't showing strength, just stubbornness and stupidity.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Stargnoc (May 24, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
           
        Cheney is not showing strength, he's a coward lying to America to try to avoid jail time.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by argusd (May 22, 2009 10:26 am ET)
      2  
      The torturers used Engineers In Training? It's bad enough they call him the Architect of torture.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 22, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
        2  
        Oh god, the LAST person you'd want do that would be ENGINEERS! ;)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (May 22, 2009 11:52 am ET)
      2 15
      Great speech, Dick.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (May 22, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
        11 2
        Cheney does give a great speech. He's a fascinating study. How the human ego can deceive itself to such a degree and believe it's own falsehoods with that amount of certainty...

        his willfull ignorance of the effects of torture upon the tortured and the torturers, the anti-Life idea that any means are justified to uphold his ungoldly ideals of American superiority and acquisition....on and on. He's made himself into a perfect anti-Christ.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MissDee (May 22, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
             
          He's a fascinating study. How the human ego can deceive itself to such a degree and believe it's own falsehoods with that amount of certainty...

          The same can be said, and with even more validity, about Obama...
          Report Abuse
        • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 22, 2009 4:34 pm ET)
          5  
          Hitler gave a great speech too and was a fascinating character. Yes, I did go there. The two differ only in their ability to carry out the evil sadism in their heart. Democracy restrained Cheney where it failed in Germany. However, let's have no doubt that they are cut from the same cloth.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (May 22, 2009 8:51 pm ET)
          2  
          MARY,great insite on that last post
          Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (May 22, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
      6  
      Can someone please also send a message to President Obama that perhaps it is time for him to have a press conference similar in nature to the one depicted in the movie "The American President" with Michael Douglas where toward the end of the movie he finally put his chief antagonizer in his place by finally uttering the words that Michael J. Fox's charactor kept telling him to say...

      Only it would be...

      "My name is Barack Obama... and I AM the president of the United States!"

      FYI: This is how pathetic the corporate owned media is... Within the Chicago Sun-Time this morning, not only did they put President Obama's speech on national security and the closing of Gitmo on page 13... they organized it along with the now private citizen Cheney's worthless speech as if the two had a debate on the issues...

      In other words... they placed the POTUS on the same level playing field with a now known to be liar and potential war criminal...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spooky3 (May 22, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
      1  
      NPR (and/or its local affiliate WAMU) also aired a small portion of Cheney's claim, followed by no questioning of the facts.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by truthbetold1227 (May 22, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
         
      Cheney is an arrogant a**! His hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting! Why are we not openly investigating this guy! He lied to us about the Iraq War from the beginning and now he's telling the truth??? Now he wants transparency??? Really??? He's entitled to his opinion but this go way beyond giving his opinion. His sad attempt at defending his broken legacy is pathetic! We haven't been safe DICK! In addition to the Anthrax attacks, there have been plenty of bombings around the world targeting westerners. Been on any trains in London or Madrid lately DICK? I guess American safety outside the US doesn't count.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dadre (May 22, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
      2  
      Funny thing is that dave and mark can play this dumb game all day because they know Obama won't press charges. If Obama does he will lose the 3 republicans that aren't already playing politics. Their will basically boycott his agenda no matter what he puts in it and there will be Democrats who will pander to the formerly republican voters or even more will get paid off by big business in revenge. We all know that most of them don't care about this country when they're not in power.(Even though they just care about the top 1% when they are.) Washington will basically stop because there are enough politicians who only care about themselves and their immediate friends to be a factor.

      Also of course Cheaney lied, even mark and dave know that. They are either too stubborn to believe a republican would lie, root for anyone against Obama for another reason, or are paid to go on this site and support republican. They are both smart though dave keeps wanting to prove me wrong with his racist comments, and mark with his teleprompter comments. They should understand that Cheaney did not say anything historically correct except the fact that 911 happened . Cheaney was fighting his whole time in office with the CIA calling them liars but suddenly now when they are against a Democrat they are the most truthful people.

      Thats like me suddenly saying that mark is always correct about politics..the one time he goes against a republican viewpoint....doesn't sound right when it rolls off the tongue.

      All information points to a coordinated torture program which was illegal even by the standards the bush administration set.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shag11 (May 22, 2009 4:39 pm ET)
      2  
      This morning, CNN allowed Mary Matalin and Fran Townsend in consecutive appearances, to help Cheney further his lies. This went on unchallenged. Last night, Anderson Cooper had Lynn Cheney on, and continually push-back with info that was contrary to her father's lies. At least Cooper showed some grit.
      It was interesting how Cheney wanted to have her own truth, but attempted to totally dismiss the points Cooper was trying to make.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (May 22, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
      4  
      I'd like the torture apologists (read: sadists) to answer me this. If the ends justify the means, then why stop at waterboarding? Why not bring in the children of the suspect and torture them in front of his eyes? If we're really worried about the ticking timebomb then why stop at simple simulated drowning?

      This is where the sadist argument breaks down. If it's truly about protecting the country then there should be no line they weren't willing to cross. After all, we know that several suspects were waterboarded fifty or more times. Obviously, the technique wasn't very effective. Why not crank it up?

      The reality is that situations like this lay bare the dark sadistic underbelly to any society. These antisocial sickos are laying dormant in our country waiting for the right moment to express their perversions. We should learn from them and never let their deviance hold sway over public opinion. After all, their cognates in Muslim society are folks like Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Muhammed. We all know what happens when sadists are allowed to dictate public policy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jayhammers (May 24, 2009 5:52 pm ET)
           
        It is not simulated drowning. It is the full feeling of drowning. It is drowning.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.