WATCH: The Former VP Takes Off The Gloves In His Attack On Senate Dems For Their ‘Crap’ CIA Report

Cheney play button

Among the latest reactions to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s so-called “Torture Report” on the CIA’s terrorist interrogation techniques is one just issued by the Russian government — a harsh condemnation of the intelligence-gathering methods the report describes.

The New York Times says that the regime of Vladimir Putin wasted no time in claiming that the document released by Senate Democrats provided “confirmation of gross, systemic human rights violations by the American authorities.”

“We are urging the human rights community and responsible international organizations and structures to seek from Washington the disclosure of the full spectrum of information about human rights abuses committed in the framework of this ‘global war on terror’ and to bring those guilty to justice.”

Presumably, one of those Russia wants prosecuted and brought to “justice” is the man who talked extensively with Fox News’ anchor Bret Baier on Wednesday evening — former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Cheney was blunt, direct and unwavering in his broad critique of the Senate document and of the Democrats behind its preparation and release. In the exclusive “Special Report” interview, the number-two man in the administration of George W. Bush called the results of the committee’s investigation “deeply flawed” and strewn with “lies.”

Cheney defended the CIA’s efforts in the post 9/11 period and said it was successful — “they did a helluva job” — summing up the Senate Democrats’ partisan investigation in six words: “The report is full of crap.”

You can watch a pithy portion of the Vice President’s interview with Bret Baier by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

This One Thing Could Put Americans In Grave Danger, And Obama Can’t Make Up His Mind About It


U.S. Marines are on heightened alert. So are the CIA, DHS, Congressional security details, even the Secret Service at the White House.

CNN tells us why tensions are running high in Washington and at U.S. facilities around the world:

They’re all geared up for possible reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s $50 million investigation of Bush-era CIA interrogation tactics on detainees in the years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Administration critics argue that President Obama is trying to have it both ways — claiming to be concerned that the release of the highly controversial report could lead to real trouble for America — yet, at the same time, saying he supports its being made public.

In his briefing on Tuesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest revealed for reporters what appears to many to be the self-contradictory nature of Obama’s position:


“There are some indications that the release of the report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday.

“The president believes that, on principle, it’s important to release that report, so that people around the world and people here at home understand exactly what transpired,” Earnest said.

The Democrat in charge of the U.S. Senate committee that’s making the long-awaited report public is California’s Dianne Feinstein, who will soon be replaced in her committee leadership role by an incoming GOP senator.

There are those who argue that Feinstein and her fellow Democrats on the panel are determined to rush the report out of Congress before the Republicans take control in January.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch a CNN piece on the Senate report, the intense controversy surrounding it, and the potential for trouble that its release could introduce.


Photo Credit: twitter

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Do We Have A President Who Doesn’t Seek Advice?

Photo credit: Everett Collection /

The Government Accountability Institute reports that President Obama continues to skip the majority of his Presidential Daily Briefings. This is a stunning fact, first reported two years ago and now updated and reconfirmed. Worse, it was also just reported that Obama likewise doesn’t consult his White House predecessor. Altogether, this paints a very troubling picture.

To recap: In September 2012, the Government Accountability Institute released a study which revealed that our president failed to attend a single Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) in the week leading up to the anniversary of 9/11, despite major eruptions in the Arab world, and despite the obvious fact that we were approaching another 9/11 anniversary (i.e., the highest level of security alert). And yet, President Obama didn’t attend a single briefing that week. In fact, Obama attended only 43.8 percent of his Daily Briefs in the first 1,225 days of his administration. For the year 2012, he attended a little over a third.

This is outrageous, unacceptable for any president. It’s not only unwise from a national-security standpoint but also politically, especially for a president often criticized for spending too much time vacationing and campaigning and dashing for the golf course and fundraisers immediately after beheadings and aircraft downings.

So, that was bad enough. Apparently, however, the problem continues. The Government Accountability Institute has now updated its report and found that President Obama has missed over half the briefings in his second term, obviously learning little (literally) since the first. The man has skipped hundreds of daily briefings. These revelations come amid stinging criticisms of Obama’s methods by former top administration officials, including Leon Panetta, Robert Gates, and others.

By comparison, President George W. Bush not only didn’t miss the PDB but actually expanded it to six meetings per week.

Speaking of Bush, the former president was recently interviewed by Brian Kilmeade of Fox News. Here, we learned that Obama apparently never calls Bush for advice. “[Bush] said he has not heard from President Obama except when the president called with the news that [Osama] bin Laden had been killed,” reported Fox. Bush told Kilmeade: “He has not [called] on a regular basis, which is OK. It doesn’t hurt my feelings. It’s a decision he has made. Presidents tend to rely on the people they’re close to … and I understand that.”

Bush was gracious. And from what I can tell from my research, what he said is accurate. Obama does not consult his predecessor.

Fox added that Bush said “that he used to speak with his predecessor, Bill Clinton, regularly while in office.”

Of course, he did. All sitting presidents speak with and consult former presidents. That’s what they do. They do so at least as a courtesy and at best as a necessity. The guy who held the Oval Office job before you has valuable perspective. If Obama had contacted George W. Bush on Iraq, he might have heard something particularly useful, especially given how badly he has botched the situation by prematurely pulling U.S. troops and smoothing the way for ISIS.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

History Shows Ebola Not The Threat That Political Chattering Heads Say It Is

Photo credit:

As much as I enjoy beating this President up for his own personal incompetence and that of his sycophants, we need to put Ebola into perspective.

In 2012—the last year for which we have verified statistics—roughly 92 people a day died on our highways.

So far, one guy came into a Dallas hospital from West Africa after having been exposed to Ebola—having lied about where he had been—and died. He infected two nurses who treated him.

This is definitely a matter of concern, but hardly the political contagion that the Sunday morning TV talking heads seem to think it; nor is it the leading edge of a bubonic plague-like outbreak in our cities.

That said, fixing this would be a lot easier if the citizens actually believed that their government was competent to fix the problems government is actually supposed to fix.

We learned something very important during and after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, which smacked down New Orleans.

We learned that if you truly want to be safe from a disaster, you cannot depend on the government to bail you out.

In that case, the single most corrupt city in the single most corrupt state in the entire nation was depending on the usual slate of clowns they had elected to step up and show some leadership–and it didn’t happen.

So they blamed George Bush, who happened to be President.

Never mind that first response to things like Hurricanes and pandemics is from the local authorities.

And in absolute fairness to this President, that is still the case.

It should tell you something about this country that even after the thorough screwing the healthcare system in this nation has taken from the current administration in terms of economics, the Ebola “outbreak” was limited, even though our treatments for this strain of the virus are only experimental.

It goes to show you what a little attention to cleanliness and public health will do. If this had been the late 19th century, the numbers might have been a stark contrast.

The point here is that Ebola is just another in the continuum of threats we face every day, and it doesn’t even rank as high up on the list as bad driving. Not nearly as high.

Those politicians who are seeking some advantage from the very small incident that occurred in Texas are going to find that the American public is a lot smarter than they are.

Can radical jihadists attack the United States with some bio-terror threat?

Of course. So can anybody else who wants to—somebody like the late Tim McVeigh whose weapon of choice was fertilizer and diesel fuel in Oklahoma City. You don’t have to be too technically sophisticated; and if you are willing to die in the process, it’s even easier.

There is, however, a limit to the number of people who are willing to kill themselves along with you.

Here are the medical facts of life.

When we needed an antibiotic in the world, a Scottish scientist discovered penicillin in a moldy petri dish. Scientists from the Northern Regional Research Lab in Peoria, Illinois during World War Two figured out from a moldy cantaloupe how to mass produce it.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Bombshell: What The New York Times Just Revealed Could Totally Rewrite Debate On Bush’s Iraq War

WMD Iraq

Even when it publishes a detailed investigative report that basically says George W. Bush was right in stating there were dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Saddam’s Iraq — even when its own reporters reveal the truth about Saddam Hussein’s deadly chemical weapons stockpiles — the New York Times tries to vilify President Bush by essentially rewriting history and ignoring present danger.

Splashed across the front page of Tuesday’s Times is an article that repeatedly makes clear that one of President Bush’s main, stated reasons for invading Iraq post-9/11 was legitimate. There were WMD’s — chemical weapons, lots of them — hidden in Iraq and discovered by our troops.

What the article also make clear is that the discovery and destruction of Saddam’s chemical weapons caches over many years was, for whatever reason, kept secret.

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the ongoing attempt to “blame Bush” and cast the former president in a negative historical light, the Times piece attempts to condemn the Bush administration for, essentially, covering up the existence of those WMDs, thus leading to risk and injury for military personnel who found them and were involved in their destruction.

The Times reporter, C.J. Chivers, tries to recast the Bush administration’s justification for the invasion of Iraq as an effort to stop an “active” WMD program carried forward by Saddam.

The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

That “active” element of the Iraq War WMD debate is not reflected in New York Times criticism of the Bush administration in the years following the invasion. For instance, there’s this passage from a December, 2003 Times article that featured quotations from outspoken Bush critics:

They say that the administration’s statements that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons that it could use on the battlefield or turn over to terrorists added an urgency to the case for immediate military action that would have been lacking if Mr. Hussein were portrayed as just developing the banned weapons.

“This was a pre-emptive war, and the rationale was that there was an imminent threat,” said Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a Democrat who has said that by elevating Iraq to the most dangerous menace facing the United States, the administration unwisely diverted resources from fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

Ironically, one of the warnings President George W. Bush repeatedly issued when he invaded — that Iraq’s WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against Western nations — ironically, that warning now appears to have been justified.

But in its investigative report, the New York Times gives Bush absolutely no credit for his prescience as it describes how ISIS has seized a critical facility in Iraq and could now be in possession of deadly WMDs:

Since June, the compound has been held by the Islamic State, the world’s most radical and violent jihadist group. In a letter sent to the United Nations this summer, the Iraqi government said that about 2,500 corroded chemical rockets remained on the grounds, and that Iraqi officials had witnessed intruders looting equipment before militants shut down the surveillance cameras.


Photo Credit: New York Times

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom