Cheney Has Prevented Further Attacks
WSJ Editorial
BY STEPHEN F. HAYES
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Dick Cheney sat transfixed by the images on the small television screen in the corner of his West Wing office. Smoke poured out of a gaping hole in the World Trade Center’s North Tower. John McConnell, the vice president’s chief speechwriter, sat next to him and said nothing.
Then, a second plane appeared on the right-hand side of the screen, banked slightly to the left, and plunged into the South Tower. “Did you see that?”
Mr. Cheney asked his aide.
A little more than an hour later, Mr. Cheney was seated below the presidential seal at a long conference table in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, better known as the bunker. When an aide told Mr. Cheney that another passenger airplane was rapidly approaching the White House, the vice president gave the order to shoot it down. The young man was so surprised at Mr. Cheney’s immediate response that he asked again. Mr. Cheney reiterated the order. Thinking that Mr. Cheney must have misunderstood the question, the military aide asked him a third time.
The vice president responded evenly. “I said yes.”
These early moments and all that followed from them will define Mr. Cheney’s vice presidency. He was aggressive in those first moments of the war on terror and has been ever since.
Mr. Cheney flew from the White House that night to Camp David, where he stayed in the Aspen Lodge, usually reserved for the president. It was his first night in the “secure, undisclosed location” that would eventually provide fodder for late night comedians. When he woke the next morning, Mr. Cheney asked himself two questions: When is the next attack? And what can I do to prevent it?
They were the questions on the minds of many politicians immediately following 9/11. “When, not if” quickly became one of many clichés to emerge from the national trauma of that day. Democrats and Republicans alike spoke of further terrorist acts on U.S. soil with certainty.
Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida who has since retired but at the time was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, described the intelligence after a CIA briefing days after 9/11. “There is evidence that Tuesday’s attack was the first phase of a multi-phase series of terrorist assaults against the United States, all under one umbrella plan,” he said. “It’s critical that we move with what capabilities we have today and strengthen those capabilities so that the next acts of this horrendous scheme against the people of the United States can be interdicted before it is executed.”
No wonder, then, that a Time/CNN poll, taken in September 2001, found that four out of five Americans believed another attack within a year was either “somewhat likely” or “very likely.”
That was nearly six years ago. To many, the threats no longer seem urgent. Critics speak of “the so-called war on terror,” and accuse the administration of exaggerating the threats. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a leading indicator of Democratic conventional wisdom, recently argued that the “culture of fear” created in response to the 9/11 attacks has done more damage than the attacks themselves.
But Mr. Cheney has not moved on. He still awakens each day asking the same questions he asked on Sept. 12, 2001. Then, as he sips his morning coffee, he pores over the latest intelligence on his own before receiving an exhaustive briefing on the latest threat reports. After that, he joins his boss for the president’s daily intelligence briefing. All of this happens before 9 a.m. He mentions the war on terror in virtually every speech he gives, and in a letter he wrote to his grandchildren he acknowledged that his “principal focus” as vice president has been national security.
The way that he has gone about his job has won him many critics. His approval ratings are low. A small but growing group of congressional Democrats is mobilizing to impeach him. Respected commentators from respected publications have suggested that his heart problems have left him mentally unstable. Others have called on him to resign. Some conservatives have joined this chorus of criticism, with one prominent columnist labeling the vice president “destructive” and another dismissing those who share his views as “Cheneyite nutjobs.” This past Saturday, protesters near his home outside Jackson, Wyo., tore down an effigy of Mr. Cheney in much the way Iraqis famously toppled the statue of Saddam Hussein.
So President Bush should ignore Mr. Cheney’s advice and the White House communications team should keep him hidden from public view, right?
Nonsense. With intelligence officials in Washington increasingly alarmed about the prospect of another major attack on the U.S. homeland, and public support for the Bush administration’s anti-terror efforts reclaiming lost ground, we need more Dick Cheney.
The policies he has advocated have been controversial. But they have also been effective. Consider the procedures put in place to extract information from hardcore terrorists. Mr. Cheney did not dream up these interrogation methods, but when intelligence officials insisted that they would work, the vice president championed them in internal White House debates and on Capitol Hill. Former CIA Director George Tenet–a Clinton-era appointee and certainly no Cheney fan–was asked about the value of those interrogation programs in a recent television appearance. His response, ignored by virtually everyone in the media, was extraordinary.
“Here’s what I would say to you, to the Congress, to the American people, to the president of the Untied States: I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots. . . . I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together, have been able to tell us.”
And what about the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program? Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush instructed his top intelligence officials to be aggressive in their efforts to track terrorists and disrupt their plots. Michael Hayden, NSA director at the time, took that opportunity to propose changes to the ways his agency monitored terrorist communications. A little more than a year before the 9/11 attacks, while Bill Clinton was still president, Mr. Hayden dramatized the NSA’s dilemma in congressional testimony.
“If, as we are speaking here this afternoon, Osama bin Laden is walking . . . from Niagara Falls, Ontario, to Niagara Falls, New York, as he gets to the New York side, he is an ‘American person.’ And my agency must respect his rights against unreasonable search and seizure as provided by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.”
Once President Bush took office, Messrs. Hayden and Tenet took the problem to Dick Cheney. The vice president walked them in to see Mr. Bush and in short order the changes were implemented. The results were almost immediate. The New York Times article that exposed the surveillance program in December 2005 also reported that “the eavesdropping program had helped uncover a plot by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting Al Qaeda by planning to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with blowtorches. What appeared to be another Qaeda plot, involving fertilizer bomb attacks on British pubs and train stations, was exposed last year in part through the program.”
In the most recent battle over reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. Cheney did not spend much time on Capitol Hill seeking support for the White House-backed changes as he had during the debates over detainee interrogations and earlier versions of the NSA programs. Instead, Mr. Cheney pushed and prodded inside the White House, insisting that the legislative affairs team approach the issue with the same urgency Mr. Cheney feels.
As the White House enters a critical domestic phases of the war on terror–with a heightened threat environment and the coming report from Gen. David Petraeus on progress in Iraq–Mr. Cheney may be called on to play a more public role. That may seem counterintuitive. If Mr. Cheney’s approval ratings are so abysmal, why increase his visibility? The answer is simple: because his low poll numbers are the result of his low profile.
Mr. Cheney likes to work in the background and he does not care much about being loved. “Am I the evil genius in the corner that nobody ever sees come out of his hole?” Mr. Cheney said in 2004. “It’s a nice way to operate, actually.” But this reticence has a price. Where there is an information vacuum, people move to fill it, particularly in Washington, a town that operates on appearances.
More important, Mr. Cheney understands these issues as well as anyone in the Bush administration. “He really does get it,” says former Iraq Administrator L. Paul Bremer, no Cheney acolyte. “From his time in Congress on the Intel Committee, to his time as secretary of defense–I saw him every now and then in the ’90s when we were both out of government–he really is a student a international security matters.”
Before he accepted his current position, Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, was critical of Mr. Cheney’s use of intelligence. But he nonetheless argued that the vice president was underutilized as a spokesman. “He has such a way of making it simple and compelling.”
Mr. McConnell is right. Mr. Cheney can be a very effective communicator. That doesn’t mean he never makes mistakes. He does. (His prediction in 2005 that the insurgency in Iraq was in its “last throes” comes to mind.) But recall his impressive outings in debates against Joseph Lieberman in 2000 and John Edwards four years later, or his appearance on “Meet the Press” shortly after 9/11–an interview that even the New York Times called “a command performance.”
Mr. Cheney has given some thought to the Bush administration’s difficulties communicating on the war. “The notion that somehow we’ve got to get across to people is they just cannot think of this as a conventional war,” he says. “This is not Desert Storm. It’s not Korea. It’s not World War II. This is a struggle that’s going to go on in that part of the world for decades. I don’t know that you’re going to be involved for Iraq for decades; I don’t want to say that. But just think about it. We just have to have people understand that and understand that the alternative is not peace. The alternative is not [that] we go back to the way the world was before 9/11. You can’t turn back the clock.”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
“We just have to have people understand that and understand that the alternative is not peace. The alternative is not [that] we go back to the way the world was before 9/11. You can’t turn back the clock.”
And therein lies the illusion of the left and the lie of the leftist politicians — that getting out of the sandbox will somehow magically take us back to September 10, 2001.
The despicable, dishonest, disgusting maneuvers of the surrender monkey media have literally blinded the American public to the fact that the clock CANNOT be turned back and that this country will NEVER be the same again. While I sometimes agree (out of frustration) with those who think another terrorist attack on US soil would wake up the sheeple, the hard truth is that another attack would not galvanize this country. People would fall apart.
And that is why, regardless of what anyone says on the Hill, we MUST allow our troops to finish this mission. We cannot fight them here. People have been lied to and lulled back to sleep for so long the shock of an attack would kill them.
If we only saw the big picture when it comes to what we are trying to accomplish in the Middle East…..
August 14th, 2007 at 9:54 pmThis article is amazing!! I can’t believe that this guy was able to type up this entire essay with Dick’s cock and bulls in his mouth the entire time. A real talent..
August 14th, 2007 at 11:36 pmCheney could debate any dem and come out way ahead. He reminds me of Reagan the great communicator. Cheney 08
August 14th, 2007 at 11:54 pmEric your an ass
August 14th, 2007 at 11:55 pmEric, what Cooper D said.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:37 amHow about this: Eric, explain your position rather than adding meaningless tripe.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:57 amsounds like eric is jeolous..it still blows me away that there are people that still think this war is all about the oil. Kathy Ozone hit the nail on the head
August 15th, 2007 at 3:40 amGood article, great man.
I am so thankful that Cheney and Rumsfeld were in the chair when this shit hit the fan.
erica, your a small minded little bitch. don’t you have to get your bookbag ready? 8th grade is calling. You may well be alive today because of Cheney.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:54 amGo Cheney! I actually like him.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:57 americ, what Cooper D and JohnCunningham said, I agree with.Piss off back to the huff or the kos where you are welcome, not here unless you have something intellegent to say,. anyway its balls not bull you dispicable cretin
August 15th, 2007 at 4:18 amEric you are an ass.
Cheney is a no holds bar, kick some ass, don’t take no shit from people who want to destroy us. He is a real man and a leader. No trace of coward in him and not out to please the dummycrats and their followers. He can put his balls in my mouth anytime!!!!
Great article!!!!!
August 15th, 2007 at 4:57 amEric wishes HE had Cheneys cock and balls in his mouth.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:30 amDick Cheney doesn’t need the attention. He has been a brilliant Exec for a long time. His ideas and his input into the GWOT have been instumental in uncovering terrorist ops at home. In years hence, no doubt he will get credit for many more successes that we are not privy to at the moment.
If GW is the Lone Ranger, then DC is his also brilliant sidekick Tonto.
And Eric your’re the stuff that comes out a horses’ ass that flies lick.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:41 amEric, do you have Hillary’s cock in your mouth?
August 15th, 2007 at 6:50 amI don’t wan to go back to Sept 10th, 2001…the cat’s out of the bag and there will be no peace until the radicals of this cult are eliminated.
We are talking a couple of generations before this occurs through military and cultural means.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:57 amERIC YOU ARE A PUKE LIBERAL. IF JOHN KERRY WAS PRESIDENT HE WOULD SHOOT HIMSELF IN THE BUTT SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE FIGHT! THE FAIR HAIRED BOY VICE PRESIDENT WHO WAS THAT THE FAG EDWARDS HE WOULD BE TOO BUSY GETTING HAIRCUTS AND KISSING KERRY ON THE CHEEK LIKE THE FRENCH FAG HE IS! LIBERAL SWINE!
August 15th, 2007 at 7:11 am@ deathstar999
“Eric wishes HE had Cheneys cock and balls in his mouth.”
August 15th, 2007 at 7:32 amEric
The jihadis want to bleed you, no matter how fucking stupid you are.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:20 amI thank God & the American people everyday that Bush/Cheney defeated Kerry/Edwards.
Now let’s focus on defeating Rodham/Obama or Rodham/Richardson or we are doomed.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:05 amWith all due respect, just because Cheney “gets” the national security problem, doesn’t mean he’s always right, nor does it make him the best salesperson for the administration’s policies. For this writer to suggest his poll numbers are low because he’s been in the background is not sensible. He’s not the most appealing spokesperson and he should be in the background. Furthermore, he can be right on FISA, right on other programs to detect national security issues but he and his long time buddy Rumsfeld were absolutely wrong from 6/03 to 12/06 on the policy/strategy in Iraq and the minute Rumsfeld was finally out and the generals/strategy changed, things got better. And the decision to invade Iraq is still up for debate–we will let history judge. In fact, this article is sort of scary because it suggests he’s one of the only people in the White House who “gets” the urgency of these national security issues, and he has to go around “pushing” people whose job it is to do these things. Well, the author is trying to sell a book.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:08 amCheney is the author of the 1% doctrine. He is the reason this country has been protected.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:08 amPretty amazing article and its never been a doubt in my mind why the dems hate cheney, its because he always whips their asses..
August 15th, 2007 at 10:38 amOh and P.S, dont let people like Eric bother you..Hes just another dipshit liberal troll
For those of us who ask “Ronald Reagan, where are you when we need you?”, the answer is “Wearing Dick Cheney’s suit.”
It’s amusing to look back at the 2000 election when Clinton claimed that Gore was one of the “most engaged” Vice Presidents in history, which everyone knows was an outright lie (Bill Clinton lying, is that an oxymoron?). I don’t recall ever having heard Cheney claiming that he had too much tea and had been in the bathroom while campaign finance laws were being broken.
Mr. Vice President (Cheney): Nothing can repay the debt this country owes you. Thank you.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:02 amDick Cheney is still a total stud. Tough as nails! Despite 37 heart attacks and a couple bird shot pepperings.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:01 pmEric is such a douchebag. Comes in and lobs his grenade to get his rocks off. Go find something else fun to do besides being an ignorant fucktard.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:49 pmLL;
Very little of what you said is correct. Rumsfeld attempted to make lemonade with the lemon of an armed force Clinton had left behind. Remember Clinton? The one who forbade reinforcements or even response in Rwanda? Who Peace Dividended the Army, Navy, Air Force into submission?
Cheney is one of those people you’d hate to debate, because he’d know 4X as much as you about any subject you brought up and would think 3X as fast with it as you could on your best days.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:28 amBrian: Rumsfeld is the guy who wanted to fight and occupy Iraq with as little troops as possible. It was his big theory. Yeah, he had Clinton’s military to deal with. But he still could have deployed more troops as many of his advisors told him. So he was able to take Baghdad, but not keep it. He left that sorry policy in place for 3 1/2 years. I’m not the only one who thinks this. The facts are the facts: as soon as he was out, as soon as the counterterrorist manual was published (sort of bureaucratic in a scary way), as soon as Casey and Abizaid were replaced with Ordinero and Petraus (and more troops deployed to actually fight the enemy), things started turning around.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:31 am