Politics | 05/13/2009 10:05 am

Joe Scarborough: Cheney Right, Obama Makes Country 'Less Safe'

Joe Scarborough sides with Dick Cheney in the torture debates.

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, a former Republican representative, made it quite clear he agrees with Dick Cheney’s assessment of President Obama: The new administration’s policies, like taking a stand against torture, endanger the nation. Said Scarborough this morning: "I knew by the second day that America was less safe … If you believe, like I believe and 50% of Americans believe, that this program actually made America safer." Mika Brzezinski points out that many people believe harsh interrogation methods make the country less safe.

Watch, via Media Matters:

259 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Where did you get your percentage? Sorry 50% do not believe torture made us safer. Chenney is an A$$. He wants his control over the world back. I say we let him be water boarded and then lets see what his opinion on torture is. This culture of fear he created is done. I will never allow my government to be what it was. I will walk side by side with majority that feel as I do. Only 20% consider themself republicans therefore does that mean 10% believe in Chenney? Because the majority of the whole of Americans do not.

By S G on 05/13/2009 10:25 am

e-mail alert

Sorry typo 50% believe torture made us safer.

By S G on 05/13/2009 10:26 am

e-mail alert

I think he may have been referring to the fact that the election was not a landslide for Obama. We are a divided nation and the divide is growing wider every day. So sad to see my America like this. Americans used to be able to agree to disagree and now we just sling mud at each other instead of meeting half way.

By canuck canuck on 05/13/2009 3:28 pm

e-mail alert

canuck, we have a polarizing president. He was never really interested in bipartisonship. He hasn’t the interest or the capability to bring our country together.

polarizing has an interesting definition:

polarization is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.

If the shoe fits….

By deber B on 05/14/2009 6:16 am

e-mail alert

You are so right Deber and with the early political teachings Obama had it is not a surprise. As well his lack of experience in running ANYTHING is really starting to show through. I was glad he reversed the decision to release the photos but as he did not use an executive order to stop the release I fear he has just done this to get his middle east appology tour over with. Then we will be back at it again. I only fear for the safety and security of our troops overseas.

There is a huge swell happening in America and I look forward to July 4 being an even bigger statement of the absolute outrage we as Americans feel with regards to the spending spree they are on. I pray everyday that we can start melding together in one voice to tell them all to put the brakes on. They are going to try and push the health care through in the next seven weeks and it is going to be a disaster. An absolute disaster. I would not feel so bad if they at least had a plan but they don’t appear to have actual ‘plans’ for anything. They are just grabbing money and mark my word they are going to not spend all of it so they can say they are ‘fiscally responsible!" They must really take us all for idiots.

By canuck canuck on 05/14/2009 2:15 pm

e-mail alert

Right again Deber.

Obama has NO intentions of being anything other than supreme leader. His strong armed tactics and dirty politics are the name of the game for him. He has the big money corp. owing him and he is using it. He just hopes that he gets all of his plans pushed through before the American citizens figure it all out.

Obama is a child in the world of International politics, he is lost outside of his socialist agenda for America. He is making us unsafe and has no knowledge of what impact his statements and waffling have on the world stage.

This man is a dangerous novice.

By Kelly In Texas on 05/14/2009 6:14 pm

e-mail alert

Kelly, Obama’s power is based on three things. 1) a democratic majority in both houses of the legislative branch. 2) is a cheerleading biased mainstream media 3) is a voting constituency that benefits from big government (receives more in government programs than pays in taxes).

Three things that will, hopefully, will cause him to fail in his socialist agenda in the long run 1) Senators and congressmen who are worried about the 2010 election and see that Obama policies will wreck the economy in large swaths of the country and 2) media who are not enraptured by Obamania: talk radio, FOX news and, blogs like this 3) young voters who voted for Obama will realize that they can’t get a job and can’t spunge off their parents forever will turn against an economic policy that rewards dependency and socialistic economic structure.

By deber B on 05/14/2009 6:51 pm

e-mail alert

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

As the debate about torture rages on in Washington — with calls for investigations of the Bush administration — here’s a perhaps surprising nugget about how Americans view torture of suspected terrorists.

Turns out the more often people go to church, the more likely they are to support torture — that’s according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The poll finds that of more than half of Americans who attend church services at least once a week, 54 percent say the use of torture is often or sometimes justified.

Only 42 percent of people who seldom or never go to church agree…

Evangelical Protestants are the religious group most likely to agree; while people unaffiliated with any religious group are least likely to support torture.

Of course evangelicals were a major voting bloc courted by President Bush both times he ran for office; and former Bush officials continue to speak out now about how the harsh techniques yielded critical information that helped keep this country safe. But it’s ironic that the faithful are more supportive of torture, isn’t it?

Overall, Pew found 49 percent of Americans say torture is at least “sometimes” justified; while 47 percent say it rarely or never is. Republicans are more likely to support the actions than Democrats; while a majority of Independents believe that torture is sometimes justified.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/01/why-are-frequent-churchgoers-more-likely-to-support-torture/

By deber B on 05/13/2009 10:40 am

e-mail alert

Mr. Cheney, You Did Not Keep Us Safe

excerpt: "If 3,000 Americans had been killed on your watch, in an attack that could have been prevented, perhaps you’d be a little hesitant to accuse anyone else of endangering America. And if you had advocated torture, and the torture produced false information that you used to mislead America into an unwise, unjust and unwarranted war, you might be a tad sheepish about defending the use of torture.

Not Dick Cheney. Mr. Cheney has stepped up his attack on Pres. Obama’s security strategy, telling CBS’s Bob Schieffer that Obama’s refusal to use waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture) endangers American lives.

The truth is the Bush-Cheney policies did not keep us safe, and Mr. Cheney is not a credible spokesman on issues of national security.

Next, consider this inconvenient truth: 9-11 happened on Mr. Cheney’s watch. Tom Kean, the Republican co-chair of the 9-11 Commission, has said the attacks could have been prevented. He’s right. That fact ought to weigh heavy on Mr. Cheney’s conscience. As should these:

Before they took office, senior Bush administration officials were briefed repeatedly about the al Qaeda threat. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told incoming National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, "I believe that the Bush administration will spend more time on terrorism in general, and on al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.”

Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Clinton and Bush, presented the new Bush-Cheney administration with a plan to roll back al Qaeda. He briefed Dr. Rice on the plan. Nothing. In February, 2001, he briefed Vice President Cheney on the plan. Nothing.Time magazine has reported, "Some counterterrorism officials think there is another reason for the Bush administration’s dilatory response. Clarke’s paper, says an official, "’was a Clinton proposal.’" If true, Bush and Cheney were allowing partisan politics to endanger America.

On May 8, 2001 - three months after being briefed by Clarke - Cheney was instructed to chair a task force on terrorism. It did not meet before the 9-11 attacks.

The FBI asked the Bush-Cheney Justice Department for58 million to beef up its domestic counterrorism capacity by hiring more translators, more field agents and more analysts. The Bush-Cheney Administration told the FBI no.

Congressional Democrats sought to shift 800 million in the Pentagon budget from Star Wars (the Bush-Cheney faith-based missile defense system) into counterterrorism. The Bush-Cheney administration threatened to veto the entire defense budget. Congressional Republicans sided with Bush and Cheney, and blocked the Democrats from transferring the funds.

In July, 2001, an FBI agent in Phoenix reported that Middle Eastern men - possibly al Qaeda - were taking flying lessons. He suggested that al Qaeda operatives might be trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system. His warning was not acted on.

On August 6, 2001 Pres. Bush received a classified briefing, the President’s Daily Brief. On that day, the headline blared: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." According to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, Bush told the briefer, "All right. You’ve covered your ass, now." Dick Cheney, who has called the President’s Daily Brief "the family jewels," presumably received the same briefing. Neither Bush nor Cheney acted on it. The "family jewels" were pearls before swine.

And the attack came. Over three thousand Americans were killed. In the heartache and rage that followed, Bush and Cheney instituted their "enhanced interrogation techniques." Uncovering a pending plot against the homeland was, doubtless, an important motivator. But the al-Libi case is a cautionary one. Rather than finding a ticking time bomb, the al-Libi torture may have been used to build a spurious case for war - a war that has weakened America.

Perhaps what’s most galling about Mr. Cheney is how, without irony, humility or apology, he holds himself out as someone who has protected America when in fact he shirked his responsibility before 9-11 and misled us into war after. The closest Dick Cheney has ever come to fighting for America is when he shot his lawyer in the face." - Paul Begala

By DeBúrca obj on 05/13/2009 1:48 pm

e-mail alert

Have we been attacked again since 9/11? George Bush was the first President to face an unprecedented terrorist attack on U. S. soil.

By deber B on 05/13/2009 2:03 pm

e-mail alert

1. We do not have to be attacked on our own soil to be ‘less safe’.

2. There is no proof that Bush/Cheney or torture has foiled any planned attack on our soil.

3. The above article speaks for itself, I am not going to keep repeating the same thing.

By DeBúrca obj on 05/13/2009 2:56 pm

e-mail alert

Perhaps if Bill Clinton had not been so busy with the goings on UNDER his desk he could have paid attention to his many warnings about Bin Laden and taken him out when he had MANY opportunites to do so. But he did not - and so all the blame for his inaction is placed on President Bush? Spread the blame around …..

By canuck canuck on 05/13/2009 3:30 pm

e-mail alert

The Clinton Administration did more than any other administration to track and combat terrorism. ALSO, the Clinton administration fully warned the Bush administration that terrorism and an attack from Al Qaeda should be top priority. They ignored it.

Also, funny those of you who think we should ignore everything the Bush administration did this past 8 years, when they are only gone a few weeks… would bring up the previous administration to THAT! But sense you want to talk about Clinton, let’s discuss the surplus he left Bush, which Bush flushed down the toilet of an unnecessary war and turned into a deficit!

By DeBúrca obj on 05/13/2009 3:46 pm

e-mail alert

Typo: since, not ‘sense’

By DeBúrca obj on 05/13/2009 3:46 pm

e-mail alert

WRONG DeBurca…Clinton played footsie with Bin Laden. Hell he sent a missle into an empty tent AFTER warning Bin Laden of the plan….get real here.

There were mistakes made, intelligence agencies did not share intel and failed to connect the dots. The system was not set up to track and the terrorist networks, as it was.

However, after the fact, Bush called the intelligence agencies to task and ramped up to protect America from future attacks. Had he made any moves to do so earlier….the left would have been squalling and bawling about civil rights…blah blah blah.

Obama has no idea what he is up against with these terrorist. Although he is getting a lessons handed to him, as he is reversing decisions that he made on the campaign trail. You do remember those, don’t you DeBurca?

You know, closing Gitmo,(no plan in place) , resuming the military tribrunals….my how things "change".

By Kelly In Texas on 05/14/2009 6:35 pm