Cheney on Fox News Sunday Discussing CIA Investigation

If you missed Dick Cheney on Fox News Sunday this weekend, you can watch the interview here and read the transcript here. Cheney has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s decision to investigate CIA interrogation techniques, and of the President’s national security policies in general. You’ll want to see the interview to understand his argument.

Here is a sample:

CHENEY: Chris, my sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives, in preventing further attacks against the United States, in giving us the intelligence we needed to go find Al Qaida, to find their camps, to find out how they were being financed.

The — those interrogations were involved in the arrest of nearly all of the Al Qaida members that we were able to bring to justice. I think they were directly responsible for the fact that for eight years we had no further mass casualty attacks against the United States.

It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well…

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it.

CHENEY: I am.

What Does Holder Expect to Accomplish?

Andy McCarthy has been justifiably critical of Attorney General Eric Holder, who has appointed a prosecutor to investigate the CIA for interrogation methods. McCarthy’s latest columns raise serious questions about the AG.

First, McCarthy recalls how Deputy AG Holder let Al Gore off the hook when it was clear that Gore had violated campaign-finance laws. The contrast between then and now is stark:

When Al Gore clearly violated the law, Eric Holder found no controlling legal authority and shut down the case. Now, when the controlling legal authority clearly shows no violation of law, Holder has unleashed the prosecutors to go after the nation’s most crucial line of defense against terror. That is shameful.

Then, McCarthy makes an educated guess about what Holder’s agenda really is:

I believe the explanation lies in the Obama administration’s fondness for transnationalism, a doctrine of post-sovereign globalism in which America is seen as owing its principal allegiance to the international legal order rather than to our own Constitution and national interests.

[...]

Obama and Holder were principal advocates for a “reckoning” against Bush officials during the 2008 campaign. They realize, though, that their administration would be mortally wounded if Justice were actually to file formal charges — this week’s announcement of an investigation against the CIA provoked howls, but that’s nothing compared to the public reaction indictments would cause. Nevertheless, Obama and Holder are under intense pressure from the hard Left, to which they made reckless promises, and from the international community they embrace.

The way out of this dilemma is clear. Though it won’t file indictments against the CIA agents and Bush officials it is probing, the Justice Department will continue conducting investigations and releasing reports containing new disclosures of information. The churn of new disclosures will be used by lawyers for the detainees to continue pressing the U.N. and the Europeans to file charges. The European nations and/or international tribunals will make formal requests to the Obama administration to have the Justice Department assist them in securing evidence. Holder will piously announce that the “rule of law” requires him to cooperate with these “lawful requests” from “appropriately created courts.” Finally, the international and/or foreign courts will file criminal charges against American officials.

[...]

The Left will get its reckoning. Obama and Holder will be able to take credit with their supporters for making it happen. But because the administration’s allies in the antiwar bar and the international Left will do the dirty work of getting charges filed, the American media will help Obama avoid domestic political accountability. Meanwhile, Americans who sought to protect our nation from barbarians will be harassed and framed as war criminals. And protecting the United States will have become an actionable violation of international law.

Read the whole thing.

What this administration is doing by proceeding with this investigation is dangerous and offers little to gain. If Americans are killed by a terrorist attack, either at home or abroad, people will ask what we could have done to prevent the attack. This would call into question whether or not the effects of the investigation in any way inhibited us from gathering intelligence that could have prevented the attack. That’s not a question the administration would want to answer.

When Having Principle Was a Bad Characteristic

George W. Bush was criticized constantly for sticking to his principles in the war in Iraq. As public opinion for the war declined, many accused Bush of stubbornness and unwillingness to concede to public opinion. It seems some of the same liberals who criticized Bush for standing on principle have something in common with their counterpart, as many of them refuse to drop the unpopular public health care option. Cue the mainstream media critique…

Except this time, the mainstream media is condoning such adherence to principle, trying to carry liberal Democrats to the finish line. Paul Krugman is challenging Reaganism, as he laments how free market principles are hurting the chances of nationalizing health care. E.J. Dionne is desperately trying to save President Obama’s credibility by saying he kept the economic crisis from getting worse.

While some on the left are trying to help the Democrats save face, many are pushing a government takeover of health care despite the public opposition and despite the potential consequences for many in their own party (much like Bush and Iraq). Some of the same people who criticized President Bush for not conceding to public sentiment are now criticizing the public for not conceding to government.

Why is it okay for liberal Democrats to stick to a principle that is unpopular while a Republican president is criticized for the same practice? We all know the answer, but that is not the point. The point is that many liberals are openly showing who they really are, and in doing so are creating a clear contrast between the political ideologies represented by the two parties.

One party openly wants the government to expand authority and control health care choices, energy costs, the cars we drive, etc. The other believes in the principles that Paul Krugman finds so horribly wrong, which promote individual control of consumer choices. Let’s be clear: Today’s Democrat leadership is partisan and ideological. While one could say the same about Republicans, that just means that having an ideology is not grounds for criticism of one party over another.

Because there is nothing wrong with believing in principle, we shouldn’t criticize liberals for their stubborn stance. If politicians want to risk their political careers and those of their party members to protect an ideal, that is their choice. What we should be more concerned about are the principles themselves, and not the adherence to them.

Voters are tasked with choosing by which principles we want our government to abide. That choice is currently being laid out nicely, unlike in the 2008 election, where many on the left did their best to disguise their true intentions. If you didn’t know what those intentions were then, you do now.

Many liberals simply loathe George W. Bush, but they are showing some similarity to him with their principled stance on health care reform. Republicans can expose the left by attacking the principles, not the hypocrisy of standing for them.

Scott Gottlieb: Obama and the Practice of Medicine

Dr. Scott Gottlieb has a very interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about President Obama’s perception of medical practice versus the reality. Let’s take a look at a few points.

Dr. Gottlieb points out:

One theme the president has focused on is doctors’ motives. During a prime-time press conference on July 22, the president referred to a doctor who muses that she makes “a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out”—even if the child might not need surgery. Responding to a woman whose spry 100-year-old mother was given a needed pacemaker despite her age, the president said a few weeks earlier (at an ABC News town-hall event at the White House) that doctors should let patients know that sometimes “you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

I noted this earlier, and commented on the President’s logic in saying that our doctors are improperly motivated but that we should protect the doctor-patient relationship. In essence, he was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Dr. Gottlieb recognizes the President’s motive though, writing:

[Obama's] jaundiced view on medical decision-making may explain why programs the White House is proposing to lower health-care costs rely on the direct regulation of medical decisions.

Interrogation Witch Hunt May Proceed

The headline on Drudge this morning is that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to name a prosecutor to investigate interrogation techniques used by the CIA. If you recall, there was a national debate on this subject a few months ago when President Obama decided to publicly release OLC memos on interrogation techniques.

Such an investigation would be a witch hunt for political purposes. It would also be dangerous, as intelligence gathering is crucial to our national security. If the investigation does proceed and terrorist attacks occur in the future, one should immediately question the effects of the investigation on the intelligence community. Imagine what would happen if the red flag raised by the investigation caused the CIA to miss or ignore intelligence that could have prevented an attack.

In an interview with Chris Wallace back in April, former CIA Director Michael Hayden explained the effect that these witch hunts could have:

I mean, if you’re a current CIA officer today — in fact, I know this has happened at the agency after the release of these documents. Officers are saying, “The things I’m doing now — will this happen to me in five year because of the things I am doing now?”

And the answer they’ve been given by senior leadership is the only answer possible, which is, “I can’t guarantee you that won’t happen, but I do know it won’t happen under this president.”

Now, think what that means. The basic foundation of the legitimacy of the agency’s action has shifted from some durability of law to a product of the American political process. That puts agency officers in a horrible position.

So I think the really dangerous effect of this, Chris, is that you will have agency officers stepping back from the kinds of things that the nation expects them to do. I mean, if you were to go to an agency officer today and say, “Go do this,” and, “Why am I authorized to do this?”

And I say, “Well, it’s authorized by the president. The attorney general says it’s lawful. And it’s been briefed to Congress.” That agency officer’s going to say, “Yeah, I know, but I see what’s going on here now. Have you run it by the ACLU? What’s the New York Times editorial board think? Have you discussed this with any potential presidential candidates?”

You’re going to have this agency on the front line of defending you in this current war playing back from the line.

There is no benefit to conducting such an investigation, except to please a partisan anti-war constituency who wants to see heads from the Bush administration. It would risk our national security and would further divide the country at a time when we are divided over the economy and health care, and are also fighting wars.

For more intelligent discussion on the issue, see Hugh Hewitt’s interview transcripts with Andrew McCarthy and with law school Deans Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman.

UPDATE: It is hard to argue this any better than Andy McCarthy does. Also, read his column from back in May when he describes how the Obama Justice Department publicly criticizes the torture analysis of the Bush administration, but advocates it in court.

Oregon Death Prescription Highlights Healthcare Rationing

Oregon has allowed physician-assisted death since 1997, and this case of the state Oregon Health Plan refusing to pay for a lung cancer drug in favor of an assisted death drug is sad. Instead of making an emotional appeal with a sob story, we’ll use this as a lesson for how cost effectiveness is used to ration health care. The article explains:

The health plan, for those whose incomes fall under the poverty level, prioritizes coverage — from prevention first, to chronic disease management, treatment of mental health, heart and cancer treatment.

“It’s challenging because health care is very expensive, but that’s not the real essence of our priority list,” said Dr. Jeanene Smith, administrator for the Office of for Oregon’s Health Policy and Research staff.

“We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer’s dollars,” she said. “It may be expensive, but if it does wonders, we cover it.”

There it is, plain and simple: “We need evidence to say it is a good use of taxpayer’s dollars.” If the people controlling the money don’t think you deserve a product or treatment, you probably won’t get it. This is why the fight over the use of cost in comparative effectiveness research is so important. It is also a lesson in the way that rationing is determined in a government health care system.

Now, the counterargument is that private insurance companies also deny coverage in some cases. The difference, however, is that an insurance company can shift costs with co-pays or with premiums. If someone has the money for treatment, they can get it. Not so with government health care, where the supply of health care is determined by someone’s judgement of what is an efficient use of taxpayer money.

How Should We Reform Healthcare?

After reading Charles Krauthammer’s health care suggestions yesterday, along with a recent speech given by FDA Commissioner Hamburg, it seemed like a good time to articulate positive health care reforms again.

It’s clear that our current system is economically unstable because of the money that government spends and the aging population that will increase that public financial burden in coming years. There are so many areas where health care can be improved, from creating a better insurance market to promoting more innovation. The current proposals in Congress, however, do very little to solve our problems. We’ve been seeing all the studies and reports, and we know the proposed ideas are wrong. But what should we do to improve health care?

I’ve written on this subject before, but I’ll reiterate some general principles here with a few specific suggestions. To be clear, these opinions are my own and in no way reflect those of my employer. That being said, the main principles we must follow to reform health care are:

• We need the marketplace to empower the consumer and allow more choices
• We need to reform our public programs to reduce government spending
• We need to clarify legal and regulatory questions and improve the laws and regulations governing health care industries

Will Senate Use Reconciliation to Pass Healthcare Reform?

Keith Hennessey has a good explanation of reconciliation and how it could be used to pass healthcare reform. He followed up this morning with a post on how it would be even more difficult than he had thought.

Not only would it be difficult, but it would be politically risky. Consider the tax pledge made by Obama and the falling public support in the polls for his healthcare plans. Obama’s promise for a post-partisan era wouldn’t have much credibility if the Senate used reconciliation to pass a highly partisan bill that would drastically alter our nation’s healthcare and economy. His promise to not increase taxes on the middle class would be broken (again) if his healthcare plan passes.

Liberals trying to seize the moment should consider the consequences of ramming through highly contentious and impactful legislation. Otherwise, some Obama voters may feel let down by the promises of hope and change.

Is American Health Care That Bad?

Scott Atlas of Stanford Medical School and the Hoover Institution has 10 reasons for why American health care may not be as bad as one would think.

Keep these reasons in mind when you hear government healthcare proponents make American healthcare sound so horribly broken that only a government option can save it.

Also read this Heritage analysis of the House and Senate bills, and this article reporting that the NHS is refusing to pay for painkilling injections in another effort to ration care.

Then sign this petition opposing ObamaCare.

Blue Dogs Roll Over For Liberals

Blue Dogs have once again proven they are a lot of bark, but little bite. The House Energy and Commerce Committee pushed through the disastrous health care reform bill Friday night, just in time for recess. Four Blue Dogs voted for it.

The timing of this bill is politically horrible, as moderate Democrats will have to go home for recess and answer to their constituents for votes on the stimulus, cap and trade, and now health care. Why would the Blue Dogs vote for this bill, particularly at this time?

The answer is that the people running Congress are liberals of the variety that many Americans don’t want to acknowledge, and they and the President probably didn’t give the Blue Dogs much choice. Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman are as far left as they come in America, and they have pushed through unpopular bills that will put many moderate Democrats at risk in the next elections.

No matter, because the liberals running Congress know they just have to get something passed now, even if their purple state partners are finished. Kim Strassel accurately described the Pelosi-Waxman dynamic this past week. With the rise of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, many missed the significance of Waxman replacing Dingell in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

These liberals are running an extremely partisan Congress, contrary to President Obama’s promises of hope and change. The evidence is the ramming through of economically devastating legislation that will and should put many in their own party at risk. The good news is that these bad bills still face uphill climbs, and that Americans can choose to change direction in coming elections.