The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Foggy Bottom

Clinton: Cheney Not a Reliable Source

By Glenn Kessler
House Republicans today tried to pummel Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton with questions about the administration's decision to release Justice Department memos permitting tough interrogation techniques of detainees, but she gave no ground.

At one point during Clinton's hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) cited former vice president Richard Cheney, who has claimed that the administration is suppressing documents that show a more positive picture of the effectiveness of techniques and also that the Bush administration tried to correct problems as they arose.

"It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton shot back.

Posted at 5:43 PM ET on Apr 22, 2009  | Category:  Foggy Bottom
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Gibbs: Moran Leaving White House "to Spend More Time" With Her Family | Next: Andy Stern at the Center of Union Tensions

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Uh, yeah. She attempted to impugn the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus as well not so long ago, when he testified about the dramatic improvements being made in Iraq as a result of the surge. He was right. She was dead wrong. Care to apologize, Hillary?

Oh, and way to not answer an extremely straightforward and pertinent question, Hillary.

Glad to see Rohrabacher absolutely nail her to the wall on it.

Posted by: evenadog | April 24, 2009 12:36 PM

Yes, Cheney is a war criminal and a liar and should be punished with all the other Bush administration wackos who were involved in the torture debacle, but let's not forget that Hilary Clinton has shown herself to be an inveterate liar innumerable times since she first hit the political scene. Americans are responsible for putting these amoral individuals in positions of power. Wake up America!

Posted by: arthurgowran | April 24, 2009 8:47 AM

Cheney not a reliable source?
NO! Really? What a surprise...

And this after Cheney's truthful account regarding the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq-- which led to the deaths of over ONE MILLION Iraqi civilians, destruction of their infrastructure, the deaths of over FOUR THOUSAND American soldiers, and over $830 BILLION in war costs?

Why so cynical, people? Have a little trust in our very own Darth Vader.

Posted by: marta2 | April 24, 2009 3:34 AM

Isn't it amazing how quickly Darth Cheney became an advocate of full disclosure, once it was his ox that was being gored?

Posted by: Observer44 | April 23, 2009 5:46 PM

I can't believe how many think just because the Dems won, things in Washington are suddely going to change how and why they operate.

Maybe a few online sites let you see what's been done, but they don't tell you how they decide what they do.

The same money, people and power behind your Congress person and president, are still yanking the strings.

I guess some hope is better than none. Tell that to the family who are now homeless because of those string pullers.

Get over it "We the people." is just a slogan for the power brokers to keep us cattle to feed on what ever they throw into the trough.

Posted by: ICantBelieve_ItsCongress | April 23, 2009 5:30 PM

I have never been a fan of Hillary's since we both lived in Arkansas and moved through some of the same social circles at the same time.

When it come to Cheney though, for once I fully agree with her. He was not credible as a vice-president, he is not credible now.

He committed treason when he had his office out Mrs. Wilson, and that should have gotten him impeached AND sent straight to prison for the rest of his miserable life.

Anyone who quotes him quotes a TRAITOR.

Posted by: Tawodi | April 23, 2009 4:32 PM

Earlier Cheney was adamaent that NO intelligence on torture be released because of some unfair advantage that would give Al Qaeda, etc. Now he's arguing that ALL memos be released.

I guess this turnaround is due to the fact that he has finished burning all the secret stuff from his office.


Posted by: bweyand1 | April 23, 2009 3:53 PM

styll wrote: “Enhanced Interrogations are not torture! They certainly invade ones physical space and comfort level, however none of the effects have been disabling.”

We do not get to define ‘torture’ or, perhaps more accurately here, ‘ill treatment’. According to the ICRC FAQ:

International humanitarian law prohibits torture and other forms of ill treatment at all times and demands that detainees be treated according to the rules and principles of IHL and other international standards.

The 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture (Article 1) provides a definition of torture that is considered customary.

International humanitarian law (IHL) differs somewhat from this definition in not requiring the involvement of a person acting in an official capacity as a condition for an act intended to inflict severe pain or suffering to be defined as torture.

The ICRC uses the broad term "ill-treatment" to cover both torture and other methods of abuse prohibited by international law, including inhuman, cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and physical or moral coercion.

The legal difference between torture and other forms of ill treatment lies in the level of severity of pain or suffering imposed. In addition, torture requires the existence of a specific purpose behind the act – to obtain information, for example.

The various terms used to refer to different forms of ill treatment or infliction of pain can be explained as follows:

  • Torture: existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;

  • Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;

  • Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation.

  • Methods of ill treatment may be both physical and/or psychological in nature and both methods may have physical and psychological effects.

    Since interrogators were obviously ‘acting in an official capacity’ for the United States, these actions meet the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture definition if they intentionally inflicted severe suffering or pain. Maybe styll would like to try self-waterboarding 83 times and see if the pain and suffering it causes are ‘severe’.

    Posted by: JohnInTexas | April 23, 2009 2:56 PM

    We've got to stop insulting Darth Vader! Besides, I really like James Earl Jones.

    Posted by: JohnInTexas | April 23, 2009 2:03 PM

    These morons think they'll get back into power riding on Dick Cheney's coattails? More evidence that the GOP is determined to be a permanent minority or to just disband as a party.

    Posted by: uh_huhh | April 23, 2009 1:27 PM

    What the Bush Administration's torture memos amount to is a free license to torture as much as it takes to get information (who knows how reliable it is after being kinda drowned thrice daily for a month)that will protect our nation from another attack. It is a clear case of the ends justifying the means. Once you establish that as your national policy on interrogation tactics, it will be open season on any Americans taken prisoner by another state, organization, or whacko with a grudge. And these days, the Bush Administration has made sure there are plenty of them around.

    Accepted military interrogation tactics from their field manual are no less effective than the so called enhanced interrogation tactics. There are as many experts who have and would attest to that as retired CIA directors.

    Obama is right on with his policy of not pursuing the CIA field personnel who took the Bush Administration's (BA) policies at face value. It's the BA Justice Department and the members of the BA themselves who should be investigated for hatching these abominable policies. Safety and security at any cost is what these memos advocate. That is a smoking ember that will burn through the entire constitution if not stamped out.

    Posted by: Eireboy63 | April 23, 2009 1:26 PM

    Dick or should the first name start with a "P" Chaney is the biggest NOTHING this country has ever seen!
    He learned from an expert by the name of Nixon. Lie,connive,cheat,and distort is the Chaney rule.
    A person [ can't call him a man] that when his turn came to serve in the military, he turn his back and didn't serve as did his boss Bush43.
    Just look what this man and his boss cost in American lives and dollars!

    Posted by: jiggy1119 | April 23, 2009 1:00 PM

    Ha Ha -you dumb asses still don't know it yet - that what you think doesn't matter. You lost the election and are out of touch with the main stream. What you think doesn't matter - we, the D e m o c r a t ' s won the last election. Get it?
    Now we, the people, are going to investigate what really happened. How you managed to run the deficit up to over a trillion dollars, how you lied to us about that imaginary 'mushroom cloud', the WMD's that weren't there, the outing of Valary Plane, the firing of the eight attorney's in the Justice department, the secrecy of the past administration and the lies, the lack of transparency. All of it. We're going all the way - so stick your heads in the sand if you can't stand it. We don't want to hear about your bum President Bush, or Regan, another Bum (but that's another story). They were both dummies - had a lot of good one liners - but didn't have the brains to come in out of the rain.

    Posted by: Maxy51 | April 23, 2009 12:06 PM

    Posted by jonezen: "Pardon me for summoning our collective memory..."If only Cheney could have exercised some self-restraint, he might have been able to see the truth in Joseph Wilson's article about the lack of any WMD. Then his administration could have corrected that little problem of all of those false claims they used to make a case for invading Iraq."

    Actually, I think said collective memory should also include:

    Oct. 9, 1998:

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others.

    Oct. 31, 1998:

    Clinton signed a law making it: "...the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

    Given these "facts" Bush then enforced CLINTON'S LAW and has been crucified for--HIS--deceptions ever since.

    Yet, unlike Obama, he NEVER once pointed the finger or uttered the words:


    Posted by jonezen: "If Hillary and the Democrats really want a chance to redeem themselves, they should stop suppressing all the rosy data about the wonders of water-boarding."

    I would agree provided a closed doors investigation first revealed that no compromise of ongoing matters of National Security would result and that all the rosy data about all the parties ON BOTH SIDES who knew anything about it were made public.

    Posted by: artyanimal | April 23, 2009 11:50 AM

    It seems to me that Dick Chainy - that is right Chainy - should go through two processes. He should go through a comprehensive psychiatric test to see what is going on in his mind. He should also be given a lie detector test to see what his true values in life are.

    He and Condoleezza Rice are mostly to blame for the disastrous administration of George W. Bush.

    Posted by: abrahamsadegh | April 23, 2009 11:22 AM

    We knew more than thirty years ago when Dick Cheney first opened his tight-lipped mouth that--even with a PhD--he did not know the weight of true and honest words.

    Posted by: styll | April 23, 2009 11:20 AM

    Enhanced Interrogations are not torture! They certainly invade ones physical space and comfort level, however none of the effects have been disabling.

    Furthermore, either one of the two main people in which waterboarding was used has committed crimes that are a capital offense worthy of death.

    The problem with you liberals is that you think lethal injection, the electric chair, hanging, and the firing squad is torture as well.

    Apparently protecting our citizens is not as important as protecting a terrorist. In 911, each terrorist killed 156 Americans. And you liberals seem to be ok with that. What gives.

    You liberals think that there is some absolute 5th amendment right against self incrimination for these brutal immoral thugs. There is evil in our time, I know it when I see it and whatever we can do to prevent further loss of life before we execute such men is fine with me albeit it would be better if we did not actually have to use real torture methods....

    Posted by: DavidHolter | April 23, 2009 10:53 AM

    Hillary doesn't consider Cheney a reliable source? This from the lady who lied about the Rose Law Firm billing records and tried to keep her illegal grab of the health care industry secret. If the Bush administration wasn't reliable, the Obama bunch is much worse.

    Posted by: gerrypooh | April 23, 2009 10:45 AM

    Posted by: scrivener50 | April 23, 2009 10:44 AM

    Clinton wouldn't know "reliable" from Bosnian sniper fire!

    Four former CIA directors said releasing the memos could compromise intelligence operations.
    Even Obama's own appointee Panetta was against it. Who is more "RELAIBLE" than these 5
    men to know that compromised or diminished intel will absolutely increase an enemy's odds.
    9/11 happened after we "could not connect the dots". Yet, here we are again.


    Sadly, in still another astonishing display of weakness, the Pres. (this time) caved into
    the ACLU.

    Since when are they qualified to ingore opinions from the highest level regarding
    ongoing matters of National Security? The ACLU is not, even remotely in that loop. Team
    Obama's foremost duty is to protect citizens against a real and committed enemy. As we
    have yet to locate their leader and murderer of thousands of Americans, it would
    seem (in any sane democracy) that the ACLU's need to know is by far, less important.

    In truth, the ACLU's concerns over these memos should be no more (or less) an issue than
    any other of it's daily objections to the shackling of pregnant women convicts, or possible
    substandard county jail conditions for criminals. Why then, when faced with the most
    RELIABLE assessments available are they needlessly being allowed to risk American lives.

    The cart is clearly pulling the horse in this administration at our peril.

    Posted by: artyanimal | April 23, 2009 10:17 AM

    It's really amusing to have Hillary Clinton describe someone else as being non-credible. Pot, meet kettle.

    Posted by: Lilycat1 | April 23, 2009 10:09 AM

    Ah, Vasco44... Again I say get your facts right! You say no one else was waterboarded? So far, we know that Zubeida was subjected to this technique at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. That's the facts we know--so far.
    You have missed the point. We were lied to by the Bush administration (again)--unless you honestly believe that the term "enhanced interrogation technique" is not a euphemism for "torture". Even if I accept your position that waterboarding isn't torture (which I don't), are you saying that you really don't think there's anything wrong with waterboarding someone 183 times in ONE month?? Let's see what you'd be willing to say/admit if subjected to the same barbaric treatment.
    And you tell me how many Americans (e.g., those currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been put at risk by these actions--or are you naive enough to think this is an issue where the US can take the position of "do as I say, not as I do"?

    Posted by: pumor | April 23, 2009 9:14 AM

    Clinton didn't think Praetrus was creditable either .......the woman has NO SHAME !!

    Posted by: ANTI-O | April 23, 2009 8:08 AM

    Hey jonezen, Scooter was not found guilty of leaking the name. He was found guilty of lying to a grand jury about when he knew about it. Richard Armitrage leaked Valery Plane's name, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

    Posted by: vasco44 | April 23, 2009 6:15 AM

    Hey pumor,
    You missed the point. The credibility of Cheney's statement on the results is what she was alluding to. The statement is true,so Cheney was right. I guess the fact that the sheik mohammed did not start talking until he was waterboarded does not matter. But you know why argue facts. Noone else has been waterboarded. Do you think that other techniques weren't tried on him? Maybe we should have let the 17 member cell in the west do their act so this one despicable terrorists did not have to endure waterboarding. One terrorist waterborded is equal to how many dead americans pumor?

    Posted by: vasco44 | April 23, 2009 6:08 AM

    Off course the fat pig isn’t creditable, duh! He was the one who lied us into Iraq, had his deputy OUT a CIA officer, Valerie Plame, to punish her husband, Joe Wilson, for telling the truth about Iraq not having WMD. What came out in the Senate report today is that the Bush administration authorized torture to try to get phony confessions from inmates to say that there was a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda. One did not exist, they knew it, and they tortured people to try to cover it up. This is one of the most corrupt and criminal administrations EVER! Bush Cheney, Rummie, and others should be put on traveling waterboard shows where they are the stars of the show! Either that or they should be dropped off at Gitmo or Abu Ghraid, and have the guards unlock the doors for five minutes. These people are scum and a disgrace. If they are not punished that will be the end of our standing in the world.

    Posted by: russ_broadway | April 23, 2009 12:58 AM

    Cheney unreliable???

    Coming from someone who said she came under fire while visiting Boznia..... From someone that laughs at the threat of Pirates attacking American and other shipping....

    I think not...

    Posted by: art2vandalay | April 22, 2009 11:37 PM

    What rings so true to me about a previous post included below is that as an American, I believed (and wanted to believe,) Cheney. I soon found him to be a *ig liar.

    STAGE NOTE---ENTER STAGE LEFT: The decline of the American Empire.

    "Cheney said there were WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, and that the violence in Iraq was a few "dead enders" and would soon be over. Oh yes, and that the war would cost us little. Does this man have any credibility at all?

    Posted by: jpk1 | April 22, 2009 7:04 PM "

    Posted by: pboneil | April 22, 2009 11:31 PM

    In a world where Republicans control perceptions, what Dick wants is what America gets. We're beyond that now. Dick is just a talking head on the Republican Television Network. The felonies that he and his hires committed should be thoroughly poked through and indictments handed down.

    Posted by: BlueTwo1 | April 22, 2009 11:29 PM

    Cheney is a criminal. He can't command respect from anyone nor does he deserve it.

    Posted by: Impeachbush99 | April 22, 2009 11:15 PM

    I'm starting to like her more and more each day.

    Posted by: Impeachbush99 | April 22, 2009 11:13 PM

    After eight years at the helm of a draconian spin control machine, it takes time to relinquish that vice grip on the old levers of power. Give him some time, he'll come around. But let's not cloud up this picture with questions about his trustworthiness. Even God knows that David Addington doesn't trust Cheney.

    "Richard Cheney...claimed that the administration is suppressing documents that show a more positive picture of the effectiveness of 'techniques.' How dare Hillary suggest that he might just be pulling his own lever again? As Dick Nixon's Chief of Staff, experience has taught him how to discern when documents are intentionally being suppressed. Oh, those tricky Clintons.

    But to be fair, the Plumbers that were the downfall of the Nixon Administration definitely taught Cheney more about leaking than about plumbing. Pardon me for summoning our collective memory, but it's only been four and a half years since a grand jury issued a five-count indictment of Scooter, Mr. Cheney's Chief of Staff, who took the rap for his boss's illegal and retaliatory leaking of Valerie Plame's ID. If only Cheney could have exercised some self-restraint, he might have been able to see the truth in Joseph Wilson's article about the lack of any WMD. Then his administration could have corrected that little problem of all of those false claims they used to make a case for invading Iraq.

    But Cheney suppresses self-restraint just about as well as he suppresses his trademark smirk. It's the kind of self-restraint that you don't want in the way after decades of Machiavellian longing for unfettered power when millions in off shore hedge funds and Halliburton CEO options are just not enough and so torturing the truth out of terrorists to save American lives becomes the crowning achievement of your life’s crusade.

    If Hillary and the Democrats really want a chance to redeem themselves, they should stop suppressing all the rosy data about the wonders of water-boarding. Read my lips: they need look no further than the pink snicker that belies the ashen smirk at the base of Dick Cheney’s face.

    Posted by: jonezen | April 22, 2009 11:13 PM

    Cheney and Bush have openly admitted that they approved waterboarding. So why are these men not charged with the crime? ...........

    Posted by: glclark4750 | April 22, 2009 11:03 PM

    Cheney was Bush's insurance against impeachment. He knew he could get away with whatever because nobody would dare remove him from office with Cheney in the wings.

    Posted by: racam | April 22, 2009 11:00 PM

    Hey Vasco44... I agree with you that folks should read a variety of sources, but it's equally important to read the whole story. For example, Dennis Blair's entire comment is:

    "The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

    Please get your facts straight and quotes complete.

    Posted by: pumor | April 22, 2009 10:55 PM

    Why doesn't Cheney go on FOX and tell exactly what he wants released that will show how effective his torture was?
    Because he burned it,,remember the fire?

    Posted by: mudbone | April 22, 2009 10:47 PM

    I guess hillary did not get the memo from obama's Director of National Inteligence Deniss Blair "acknowledging in a memo to the intelligence community that Bush-era interrogation practices yielded had "high-value information,”. Some of you need to read other stories in this paper so you can be informed because apparently the credible source according to the obama administration is Cheney. Speaking of smackdowns, Castro put obama is his place yesterday. can that be the world is suppose to like us now. South American newspapers are talking about how obama was upstaged at the summit. British papers speak of what a failure his trip to Europe was and worst of all the president of France says he is weak. This is what happens when the uninformed elect an unqualified president.

    Posted by: vasco44 | April 22, 2009 10:45 PM

    Funny that the "intelligence" acquired through torture was too valuable to be released when Dick was running the asylum; but now that his pistachios are in a sling, we can broadcast it to the world. If he should have learned anything from our old enemies you learn this: Don't
    write anything down.

    We have seen the memos on the methods used and everyone is claiming they don't work, if that is truly the case there should be nothing of substance to release. Why hold back the rest , Cheney will look the fool if he is lying, if the redacted portions are not released it becomes obvious there is something to hide and it is not Cheney that looks the fool.

    Posted by: saw1 | April 22, 2009 10:42 PM

    DavidHolter asks: "When did it become ok to show such disrespect to a former vice-president of our country?"

    How about when we had to get Spiro Agnew to resign so we could impeach Richard Nixon?

    As to general contempt for Vice Presidents, just ask John Adams, "My country has seem fit to bestow upon me the least significant office that it is within the mind of man to concoct."

    And for all that, Dick Cheney has demeaned and besmirched the office in so many ways that no man had ever before conceived that he is particularly deserving of such contepmt.

    Posted by: ceflynline | April 22, 2009 10:24 PM

    To MarkfromVA and your ilk, I would remind that the right-leaning rags of whatever media seldom bother with quotes of anybody. They invent as suits their purposes (usually strawman attacks and other such puerile devices) and dare anybody to check them on it. Thank God we live in an era with big-budget video--if we can't much longer afford big-budget left-leaning rags like this--to correct the thugs and brownshirts of the right.

    Posted by: Publius56 | April 22, 2009 10:20 PM

    You gotta Love it When the Left Leaning Rag of a Paper, only writes half of what was said.

    Posted by: MarkFromVa | April 22, 2009 10:08 PM

    "What happened to my country? When did it become ok to show such disrespect to a former vice-president of our country."


    When did your country start nominating such deeply depraved men for such high offices? That's the question you need to ask.

    The idea that a man who brought such perversion to the vice presidency deserves respect by virtue of his office is a belly laugh. Call out the bomb squad and have the guy safely detonated.

    Posted by: chrisfox8 | April 22, 2009 10:06 PM

    "...positive picture...effectiveness of techniques..."

    A small mind indeed
    that which believes
    the end justify the means

    Posted by: EuroAm | April 22, 2009 10:01 PM

    why are we having this ridiculous debate over he said, she said? Clinton got that vp moron just right, he was a dangerous man who aided and abetted in perverting the constitution. Now he wants intelligence outed? give me shelter, he can't remember his own arguments against executive privelege, or is that in defense of executive privelege? anyway.

    Posted by: sls213 | April 22, 2009 9:49 PM

    Great Job, Sec. Clinton. Smack down!
    Nobody in the middle to left (~60% or more, is it???), think him credible, or have thought him credible in years.
    Q is, why is he kept around? To keep the base interested and engaged and the undecideds wavering with wedge issues. This, I believe, while the R. party figures out what to do for the future.


    Posted by: Otech21 | April 22, 2009 9:48 PM

    I'm glad she set the record straight. Especially considering that Mrs Clinton is the United States Secretary of State and has impeccable integrity. Oops. Forgot about her claim to have landed in a fire zone in the Balkans. In fact, their were several forthright statements from Mrs Clinton that were later proven to be "misunderstandings". Way to go, Mrs Clinton! You set the standard for behavior we'll never see from your opposition.

    Posted by: fike01 | April 22, 2009 9:48 PM

    By selectively reporting the dialogue between the congressman and the secretary, the Post deprives the reader of the full flavor of the exchange.
    It was probably just an oversight. Sorry Post and AP we have other sources now. When Rohrabacher was finished with her, the only thing left was a vapor trail.

    Posted by: thestalkinghorse1 | April 22, 2009 9:45 PM

    There ARE a LOT of democrats who knew about this. And there are a lot of democrats who helped tap our phones and then went right along with W and wrote laws to make it ALL legal. There is plenty of blame to go around.
    BECAUSE: We didn't hold anyone responsible for WATERGATE.
    BECAUSE: We didn't hold anyone responsible for IRAN-CONTRA.

    Let's get it right this time. Let the axe fall where it may. Let us know WHO knew what and when.
    Those who broke the law MUST be held accountable.
    Those who PERVERTED the law must be exposed.
    Those who REWROTE the law (retroactive telecom amnesty) must be held accountable at the ballot box.
    If we have to flush the entire Congress to cleanse and renew America, then that's what we MUST DO.

    Posted by: Tomcat3 | April 22, 2009 9:35 PM

    DavidHolter asks: "When did it become ok to show such disrespect to a former vice-president of our country?"

    When Dick Cheney broke the convention against not publicly criticizing your successors. Which he's been doing non-stop since the American people turfed him out.

    Posted by: JenDray | April 22, 2009 9:32 PM

    Anyone who hasn't figured out that Cheney is a stark raving lunatic madmad is in a coma.

    Posted by: Tomcat3 | April 22, 2009 9:27 PM

    delusional1 posted

    Too bad the WP didn't report the entire exchange.

    >"Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific >question. ... Dick Cheney has asked that >specific documents be declassified. ... I >didn’t ask you what your opinion is of >Dick Cheney and if you want to maintain >your credibility with us, what is your >opinion on the release of those documents?”
    >Which she never answered

    maybe cheney should sue under the freedom of information act to release those documents..

    Posted by: rhizobia | April 22, 2009 9:22 PM

    What happened to my country? When did it become ok to show such disrespect to a former vice-president of our country. I can accept that Mrs. Clinton does not agree with the policies that the Bush Administration designed and implemented. But her arrogant sneer was absolutely unbecoming of the Secretary of State. It is also unacceptable to make the implication that Dick Cheney was untrustworthy. What crime has Dick Chaney been convicted of? Indeed I am certain that he retains his security clearances. If we do not have trust in people that we indeed disagree with or if we vilify them and the laws in which they pass exercising their duly elected offices then my friends we are in trouble. Civil War II will have begun. It is incredible how you liberals seek to condemn actions taken by legitimately elected officials without even so much as having a trial take place. The presumption of innocence is an American tradition as old as America itself, yet you have already found Cheney and members of the Bush Administration guilty. This sounds rather facists, if you ask me. The United States is governed by the US Constitution and none other. From the 10 techniques, I have read about, it seems doubtful that this constitutes torture. And the last time I checked, the protections of the constitution were valid fully only for complete United States Citizens. Since when did we decided to give either participants in war or another sovereign country, or rouge terrorists, or pirates the rights conveyed under our Constitution. America will rue the day that the traitors to our country exposed fully such state secrets. America is surely in sad shape and it makes one wonder how long our tradition of a peaceful transition of power can last.

    Posted by: DavidHolter | April 22, 2009 9:21 PM

    It actually looks that she (Mrs. Clinton} was covering up for more than the simple awareness of this torture application. Of course, she had been aware of the torture. She was at the time considered to be much closer to the top power than Nancy Pelosi, and Pelosi had been informed, as it was already advertised. I have even some ideas what this might have been. Like after the general rehearsal of Oklahoma bombing, 9/11 might have been very probably the master piece of the same conductor, who should have been nobody else but she - herself. But it is yet speculations. Let investigations continue, and see, shall we?

    Posted by: aepelbaum | April 22, 2009 9:20 PM

    Funny that the "intelligence" acquired through torture was too valuable to be released when Dick was running the asylum; but now that his pistachios are in a sling, we can broadcast it to the world. If he should have learned anything from our old enemies you learn this: Don't write anything down.

    The torture excuses didn't work for the Germans or the Japanese after WWII and it shouldn't work for these morons. We executed Japanese officers for waterboarding our military personnel.
    I hope now that Obama gives those poor soldiers convicted for Abu Graib the same considerations as the CIA.

    Posted by: horace_simon1 | April 22, 2009 9:16 PM

    I believe Cheney thinks he is still "in charge" even though the "decider" under his charge is gone. Since Cheney is neither part of the executive nor part of the legilative branch, he cannot be elected or de-elected. So he must still be in charge, he firmly believes that.

    Instead of mouthing off "in his last throes" I think Cheney will do the country a huge favor is he simply takes his friends and go hunting.

    Posted by: steviana | April 22, 2009 9:12 PM

    Mrs. Clinton was asked repeatedly, if she wants Cheney to release some pertinent documents, which he is in possession of. She never answered this question. Instead she repeatedly smeared Cheney. I got the impression that these documents in question are very revealing about her own part in this investigation, and she knows it very well. Other way, she would have simply answered 'yes' or 'no'. But she, once again, didn't want to give ANY answer.

    Posted by: aepelbaum | April 22, 2009 9:11 PM

    Hillary knows all about lying so she should know about Cheney.


    "I was under sniper fire"
    "I don't recall how Rose Law firm documents made it into the White House"
    "Vince who?"
    And many more.

    I don't who is more pathetic, Hillary or who supporters.

    She is most definitely not an upgrade over Cheney.

    Posted by: krankyman | April 22, 2009 9:04 PM

    Does anyone care what Cheney says? Don't most people in Washington believe him to be deranged?

    Posted by: chrisfox8 | April 22, 2009 9:02 PM

    Dick Cheney is as trustworthy at Al Quida and Fox news. What a hoot.

    Posted by: kubrickstan | April 22, 2009 8:58 PM

    Cheney is a total criminal, war and otherwise, and all the a**-kissing Republicans can do is tear everyone else and everything American down around them, out of spite for REALITY!!!!

    Posted by: frak | April 22, 2009 8:52 PM

    Hillary Clinton - a notorious liar, does not make Cheney an honest man by questioning his credibility.

    Cheney is a dishonest creep who needs to go away. What he is doing now is anti-American.

    Posted by: wj03412000 | April 22, 2009 8:36 PM

    Shrillery and her Thunderous Foggy Bottom!

    Posted by: SAINT---The | April 22, 2009 8:24 PM

    Too bad the WP didn't report the entire exchange.

    "Madam Secretary, I asked you a specific question. ... Dick Cheney has asked that specific documents be declassified. ... I didn’t ask you what your opinion is of Dick Cheney and if you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?”

    Which she never answered.

    Posted by: delusional1 | April 22, 2009 7:57 PM

    Neither are either of the Clintons or her new boss.

    Posted by: GordonShumway | April 22, 2009 7:42 PM

    Which Hillary said this:

    Cattle futures Hillary;

    Only life accomplishment marrying Bill;

    Staying married to Bill when any decent woman would have fled;

    Travel Gate Hillary;

    Missing documents Hillary;

    "I can't recall" Hillary (8000 times);

    Managing Bimbo eruptions Hillary?

    Can anyone tell me what are her qualifications for her current job and if she has ever had a non-political job in her adult life?

    Posted by: JoeDBrown | April 22, 2009 7:41 PM

    Yo, Hillary! And hail to the Hillarians.

    It is a joy to see all of that blond, pants-suited energy in support of BHO and against the forces of evil. Well done, Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton. BHO chose well.

    Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 22, 2009 7:35 PM

    Rep. Rohrabacher to Shrillery:


    Just ANSWER my Questions!


    Iron my Shirts!" ;~)

    Posted by: SAINT---The | April 22, 2009 7:34 PM

    Ouch. I don't necessarily like Clinton but here she is dead right. Quoting a man who has done nothing but spread falsehoods and might have had a hand in outing a CIA agent, for spite, is worth a slap back.

    But you republicans keep touting just what a great job you guys did over the last 8 years. Please, keep reminding America again and again and again.

    Posted by: Fate1 | April 22, 2009 7:32 PM

    This is the pot calling the kettle black. Clinton has been a dissembler since she entered political life. She wouldn't know a true statement if she fell into a vat of true statements.

    Posted by: RFN8143 | April 22, 2009 7:17 PM

    Dear hz9604,

    No smear is needed.
    Cheney, Rice, et al.
    will put themselves in

    Why do you think
    Cheney is out there?
    The man will probably
    not go to jail but Yoo,
    Addington, and the
    rest below him should
    be worried.

    The great thing about
    Cheney on the tv is
    that the only people
    who like him are the
    few like you.



    Posted by: printthis | April 22, 2009 7:15 PM

    Too bad the Post did not report that the answer regarding Cheney's reliability as a source was not in fact a logical answer to any question Hillary was asked. Hillary has a smear mission to accomplish however.

    Hillary as a U.S. Senator was well aware of the interrogation tactics at that time.

    Posted by: hz9604 | April 22, 2009 7:06 PM

    Cheney said there were WMD in Iraq, that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda, and that the violence in Iraq was a few "dead enders" and would soon be over. Oh yes, and that the war would cost us little. Does this man have any credibility at all?

    Posted by: jpk1 | April 22, 2009 7:04 PM

    Too bad the Post did not report that the answer regarding Cheney's reliability as a source was not in fact a logical answer to any question Hillary was asked. Hillary has a smear mission to accomplish however.

    Hillary as a U.S. Senator was well aware of the interrogation tactics at that time.

    Posted by: hz9604 | April 22, 2009 7:03 PM

    Opinions are like "Daschles", everybody has one!

    BUT, Shrillery;

    they were not asking to see, or hear YOURS!

    MY opinion of the incompetence of these STUPID Congressional Clowns trying to PRETEND to be Executives-and FAILING MISERABLY!;

    is Echoed Here:

    Thanks! :-)

    Posted by: SAINT---The | April 22, 2009 6:54 PM

    Hillary Clinton has made the case that President Obama makes great decisions. Hillary made a powerful presentation to Congress today. She was frank, clear, and forceful.

    Indeed, Dick Cheney needs to look into a mirror before he opens his mouth the next time. He tries to come off as a good old boy and a sage, but comes off as aloof and arrogant. Cheney got Iraq wrong. He admitted that he did not know much about al Qaeda. This was a curious revelation recently considering the fact that al Qaeda has been trace back as far as 1993, the year that the WTC was bombed the first time. As I recall, Clinton did not suffer any more attacks on the homeland either. It would be another 8 years before Al Qaeda attached us again on US soil. This should say something to Cheney and others who try to give Bush a clean bill since we have not been hit directly since 2001. It would seem that if we can get past 2009, we may have interrupted a trend.

    Keep it up Hillary. You are doing a wonderful job.

    Posted by: EarlC | April 22, 2009 6:51 PM

    Totally awesome. You go, Hillary!!!

    Posted by: lhao333 | April 22, 2009 6:51 PM

    Good for Secretary Clinton! She's not going to take Republican bullying or let Cheney be considered credible on the torture issue, so more power to her!

    Posted by: drewbitt | April 22, 2009 6:48 PM

    class act. shows her strenths and the judgment inObama for picking her. what an asset.

    this is even better. she edevours a nit wit whinning about a handshake.

    Posted by: EricTr | April 22, 2009 6:38 PM

    TOO FUNNY! Cheney gets de-pantsed by Hillary!

    Please, President Obama, PROSECUTE CHENEY, and let this amoral war profiteer, who has gotten rich on the war he lied us into in Iraq, rot in jail for the rest of his days.

    Posted by: losthorizon10 | April 22, 2009 6:35 PM

    Private citizen Cheney can "demand" that the CIA release anything?

    Must be the moles he planted before leaving - they must and will - be purged.

    Posted by: jfern03 | April 22, 2009 6:30 PM

    Yeah, they are clintons,

    hope we never have such an impeachable offense as about lying about an affair.

    Torture is childs play compared to that, don't you think, righties?

    Posted by: jfern03 | April 22, 2009 6:28 PM

    Don't like her, and

    am sure she will put a stunt of some
    Hillary for President before it's over..

    but you gotta love what she did today, and
    appreciate her behavior so far. May it continue. But they are Clintons, you know.

    Posted by: whistling | April 22, 2009 6:21 PM

    Send Cheney to the Hague.

    Posted by: chrisfox8 | April 22, 2009 6:20 PM

    Cheney is a criminal, he should be indicted and tried in federal court. He can explain his crime there.

    Posted by: jjedif | April 22, 2009 6:16 PM

    Posted by: walker1 | April 22, 2009 6:14 PM

    Hasn't Cheney's Security Clearance been revoked?

    Posted by: walker1 | April 22, 2009 6:09 PM

    Cheney not only an unreliable source, but from his media blitz of late, not sure Cheney understands "the Bush Administration is history, and so is he."

    Posted by: JaneB08 | April 22, 2009 6:07 PM

    now-stoop down and shine my black leather boots cheney!!!


    Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 22, 2009 5:59 PM

    YOU GO GIRL !!
    Darth Vader's got nothin' on Hillary

    gotta love her.
    she has taken to her new role perfect.
    i watch her....
    she is steadfast, no joking, she states it in plain english, has great presence, stands proud and addresses the issue.

    She's not tossing back a shot and a beer like in the campaign. This woman is serious.

    Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 22, 2009 5:57 PM


    Posted by: nodebris | April 22, 2009 5:54 PM

    Too funny. She smoked his @$$.

    Posted by: bonsai5966 | April 22, 2009 5:52 PM

    The comments to this entry are closed.


    © 2009 The Washington Post Company