He started it!

Apparently Dick Cheney wants to talk about torture. Or, as he calls it, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” And that’s pretty much all he has been doing over the last few weeks. So that’s what I’ll talk about here.

To the definitions of torture let us add the well nigh inescapable appearance of the Grand Old Persecutor himself on TV what seems to be 24/7, though I suppose it’s actually less often than that. On the other hand, now that his daughter Liz has joined the fray . . .

I mean, it wouldn’t be such torture if the former Vice President had at least one or two new things to say on his second, third or even sixteenth appearance, on at least one or maybe two of the TV shows (he does save the talking heads the trouble of presenting new news in what is increasingly becoming infotainment), on even one of the networks.

As it is, viewers by now can almost finish his sentences for him. “We kept America safe for seven and a half years”; “I believe that Barack Obama has made us less safe …”; and, of course, “we did not torture.”

Conventional wisdom seems to have it that he really believes this stuff, so it wouldn’t be right to say that he is deliberately lying here, and George Orwell did address this possibility in Nineteen Eighty Four:

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed. . .

Orwell wrote this in 1949, so he had some recent history to draw upon. He wasn’t making it up. For example, the United States Office of Strategic Services made an assessment during WWII of Hitler’s methods, including this:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

I apologize to anyone who is tempted to think I want for a minute to compare Dick Cheney to the man who invaded most of Europe in a quest to dominate the world. No, that’s not where I’m going. I believe Dick Cheney really and truly believes what he’s saying, and that he truly believes the choices made on his watch were in the best interests of America.

And if he doesn’t, then at least he wants us to believe him.

Cynics suggest that he is worried about his own accountability, but I’ll take him at his word, that he is only worried about America.

Call it torture, call it “enhanced interrogation techniques,” call it what you will, most of the respected voices in the intelligence community call it wrong, ineffective, and bad for America’s reputation.

Bob Baer, for example, a former CIA agent who knows a thing or two about it – he underwent torture himself (did you see “Syriana”?) and spoke recently of a close associate who was tortured to death – is absolutely opposed to it; in recent weeks a host of operatives, both intelligence and military, have also spoken out against it from personal knowledge.

I’m going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that most of the folks who support harsh interrogation techniques are people who have never served in the military. Dick Cheney himself managed to get five deferments during the war in Vietnam, and I think it’s safe to say that most of the pro-torture commentators are too young to have seen any action.

But they did watch “24” last night . . .

Speaking of ticking time bombs, I offer this: The President has declared that the United States will not torture. Torture is illegal, period.

So let me leave you with this thought: Imagine you are the President (remember, anyone can be President), and you have a person in custody who is believed to have information that could save the country but could only be gained through torture, which you have declared illegal. What would you do?

Seriously, do you think for a minute that you would hesitate to do whatever is needed? How about, “Damn the torpedos – full speed ahead!”

At a recent press conference President Obama was asked just that question. He reiterated what he had said during the campaign in 2007:

I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals and emergency situations, and I will make that judgment at that time.

So now, will Dick Cheney please finally retire to a ranch in Wyoming, and let the rest of us move on to current crises?

Where to begin?

There is a certain amount of excitement in being a news junkie. Not only do you get your daily adrenaline rush from fear, fury or frustration as events unfold, secrets are revealed, prevarications are spun into tangled webs and once again the Emperor is seen strutting about naked, but you learn about some really interesting things you might never know if you weren’t an addict.

Of course, that begs the question: Now that I know all this stuff, what do I do with it? Do I even need to do anything with it? After all, it’s a very exciting hobby in and of itself, just knowing what’s going on in the world. But for some of us the need to share is irresistible.

Sometimes, like a joke, it’s because the pleasure grows with sharing. And sometimes “misery loves company” would explain it. But at other times it feels urgent, like spreading the alarm about a tornado watch, even though warning your neighbor doesn’t guarantee that he’ll seek shelter.

Molly Ivins looked at it this way:

I just think it helps, anything and everything, if the people know. Know what the hell is going on. What they do about it once they know is not my problem.

Last week we learned that 4,032 American troops have been killed in Iraq. We don’t hear as much about the estimated 50,327 who have suffered severe injuries, including amputations and brain damage, and of course there’s no way of knowing the eventual toll in psychological injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder.

But President Bush was pleased to announce that the surge in Iraq has “revived the prospect of success.” He announced there will be a troop reduction between now and July (the troops originally slated to be brought home by July; this isn’t because of the surge, it is because they will have been there 15 months and must be brought home).

Speaking of which, it was also Mr. Bush’s pleasure to announce that the length of deployment will be reduced to 12 months (which is where we were before the deployment increase back in April of 2007, by the way). And how many folks do you suppose noticed that this kindness will apply only to those troops deployed to Iraq after August? Any respite for troops presently in harm’s way? Forget it.

And as for the prospect of success, Gen. Petraeus told Congress last week that the progress in Iraq is fragile and reversible and he really can’t say when – indeed, if – any further troops will be coming home during Bush’s term in office. Just can’t speculate, sorry.

He also declined, though pressed, to define success, or even to describe the conditions that might make it possible to send more troops home.

By the way, the Iraqi government is expecting a $25 billion budget surplus this year, up from its surplus last year in excess of $13 billion. While the price of our gasoline surged, so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t blame the 6 o’clock newscasters for not talking about every item that I think we should know about. Truth to tell, there’s just too much out there for any one source to cover. You almost have to be a news junkie just to keep up with the important stuff.

It’s a function of the world we live in, a world much larger in many ways than the world of our youth. If you don’t believe me, take a look at today’s high school math textbook – why, kids are learning stuff you and I never dreamt of; what used to be taught in college is now a requirement to get into college.

Anyway, the least I can do is share.

As for spin: The proponents of the Bush/McCain plan to stay in Iraq for an indeterminate number of years insist upon contrasting their position with what they call the Democrats’ plan for “precipitous” withdrawal. So here’s my question, and I think it’s a fair one:

If wanting to begin drawing down the troop level in 2009 and be done with Iraq within 20 months or so after that is “precipitous,” what time frame would not be? Just curious.

Despite the fact that a new president will be sworn in on January 20, 2009, the Bush administration proposes to enter into an open-ended troop commitment with the Iraqi government, but claims it need not be approved by our Congress. The irony is that the government in Iraq insists that their congress should approve it and we have agreed to that condition.

Last but hardly least, it was revealed last week that, beginning back in 2002, the National Security Council's Principals Committee — a group including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tenet and Ashcroft, among others — met in the White House to discuss torture, and specifically which kind to apply to which terrorism suspect.

Torture planning. In the White House.

In the words of John Ashcroft himself:

History will not judge this kindly.