Robobama Comes To Disney World

The New York Times' Jacques Steinberg has an exclusive on the animatronic Barack Obama which is set to be unveiled at Disney World's revamped Hall Of Presidents when it reopens on July 4th. Obamatron is said to be shockingly realistic, even imitating the President's mannerisms. The real President Obama has also provided recordings of him making a short speech and taking the oath of office for use by his mechanical alter-ego.

The all-new Hall Of Presidents will also feature Abraham Lincoln performing the Gettysburg Address in its entirety, while plucky newcomer George Washington will get his first speaking role. This post comes via Boing Boing, where it's suggested that, "Presumably, Obamabot will explain how the reasonable middle-ground demands suspending habeas corpus, covering up war crimes, and blocking the prosecution of participants in illegal wiretapping programs."

Video and Transcript: President Obama's Speech at US Naval Academy (22 May)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

OBAMA: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please, be seated. Governor O'Malley, thank you for your generous introduction and for your leadership here in Maryland. To Vice Admiral Fowler and faculty, distinguished guests, parents, family and friends. The Brigade of Midshipmen. And most importantly, the graduates of the Class of 2009 — 756 Navy, and, I am told, the largest number of Marines in Naval Academy history.

Now, I know it's customary at graduation for guests to bring a gift. And I have. All midshipmen on restriction for minor conduct offenses are hereby officially absolved. I did say "minor."

Midshipmen, I'm told that the extra ribbon on your chest is for the honor you earned, for only the second time in the storied history of the Naval Academy, the Navy's Meritorious Unit Commendation Award.

So I've consulted with Admiral Fowler, and I can make this announcement. For all you midshipmen returning next fall, I hereby grant you something extra: an extra weekend! I should stop now.

I am extraordinarily honored to be with you today because, of all the privileges of serving as president, I have no greater honor than serving as your commander in chief. Every day, I count on Naval Academy graduates like Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the CNO, Admiral Gary Roughead; and my director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair. I'll also be counting on Ray Mabus, the former — a former surface warfare officer, as our new secretary of the Navy. Every day, I rely on former sailors and Marines on my staff, young men who served as intelligence officers in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the 32nd commandant of the Marine Corps, supreme allied commander, and now my national security advisor, General Jim Jones.

I've admired your prowess on the football field. At the White House last month, I was proud to present the team and Coach Ken with the Commander-in-Chief Trophy — which you won for the sixth straight time. And I know, you've beat Army seven straight times.

But most of all — most of all, I — I've admired the spirit of your service. Because it's not the strength of our arms or the power of our technology that gives the United States our military dominance.

It's our people. It's our sailors and Marines, soldiers and airmen and Coast Guardsmen, who perform brilliantly in every mission we give them.

Class of 2009, today is your day. It's your day to reflect on all you've achieved or, should I say, all that you endured: the madness of I Day that began your transformation from civilians to sailors and Marines; that endless Plebe Summer when you were pushed to new levels, new heights, physically, mentally, morally.

And speaking of new heights, I'm told that one of your proudest achievements still stands: one of the fastest times for the Herndon climb. Congratulations on that.

And families, today is your day too. It's the latest in a line of proud firsts: the first time you saw your son or daughter with that Navy haircut, that first time you saw them in their summer whites and today, the first time you'll see them as officers.

So to all of you — moms and dads, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandmas and grandpas, and all the local sponsor families who opened your homes to these Midshipmen — thank you for your support and your patriotism. We are grateful.

This class is about to become the latest link in a long, unbroken chain of heroism and victory; a chain forged in battles whose names are etched in the stone of this stadium — from Coral Sea to Midway to Guadalcanal, from Iwo Jima to Inchon, from the Mekong Delta to Desert Storm.

For some among us, these are not just places on a map. They are the stories of their lives. And we honor all of our veterans here today.

This chain of service calls to mind words that were spoken here in Annapolis, on another spring day, a century ago.

The crowds assembled, the bands played, the cannons roared, and as John Paul Jones' body was carried to the Yard, President Teddy Roosevelt spoke to the midshipmen gathered there that day. "Remember," he said, "our words of admiration are but as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals if we do not prepare to emulate their deeds."

Emulate their deeds. That is what you are called upon to do. And in doing so these past four years, you've not only given meaning to your own lives; you serve as a reminder and a challenge to your fellow Americans to fulfill the true meaning of citizenship.

America, look at these young men and women. Look at these sailors and Marines. Here are the values that we cherish. Here are the ideals that endure. In an era when too few citizens answer the call to service, to community or to country, these Americans choose to serve. They did so in a time of war, knowing they might be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Indeed, as we near Memorial Day, we pay tribute to all those who have given their lives so that we might live free, including those aboard that Navy helicopter who were lost this week in the waters off California. We send our prayers to their families and to all who loved them.

In a culture where so many chase the outward markers of success that can so often lead us astray — the titles and status, the materialism and money, the fame and popularity — these Americans have embraced the virtues that we need most right now: self-discipline over self-interest, work over comfort, and character over celebrity.

After an era when so many institutions and individuals acted with such greed and recklessness, it's no wonder that our military remains the most trusted institution in our nation.

And in a world when so many forces and voices seek to divide us, it inspires us that this class came together and succeeded together, from every state and every corner of the world. By building an institution that's more diverse than ever — more women, more Hispanics, more African-Americans — the Naval Academy has reaffirmed a fundamental American truth: that out of many, we are one.

We see these values in every one of these sailors and Marines, including those who've already served their country, the dozens among you with prior enlisted service; the perseverance of Elvin Vasquez, a Marine supply chief in Iraq who finally got into the Naval Academy on his third try — who never gave up trying because, he says, "There's just something about being a Marine."

It's the example of Carlos Carbello, who left the tough streets of LA to serve on a destroyer in the Pacific and who has used his time here to mentor others, because he's the oldest midshipman — the old man — at the age of 26.

It's the patriotism of Sade Holder, who came to America as a child from Trinidad, enlisted in the Navy and then earned the titles she values most: "U.S. citizen," and "Navy midshipman," and, today, "ensign."

And it's the reverence for tradition shown by James P. Heg, a communications maintenance Marine in Iraq who today is joined by the man who first urged him to sign up, his grandfather, returning six decades after he was a midshipman, a submariner from World War II, 89-year-old Captain James E. Heg.

Honor, courage, commitment.

These are the values that have defined your years in the Yard and that you'll need in the years ahead — as you join the fleet, as you join and lead the Marines, as you confront the ever-changing threats of an ever-changing world.

For history teaches us that the nations that grow comfortable with the old ways and complacent in the face of new threats — those nations do not long endure. And in the 21st century we do not have the luxury of deciding which challenges to prepare for and which to ignore. We must overcome the full spectrum of threats — the conventional and the unconventional, the nation-state and the terrorist network, the spread of deadly technologies and the spread of hateful ideologies, 18th century-style piracy and 21st century cyberthreats.

So, SEALs and Special Operations Forces, we'll need you for those short-notice missions in the dark of night. But we'll also need you for the long-term training of foreign militaries so they can take responsibility for their own security.

Marines, we need you to defeat the insurgent and the extremist. But we also need you to work with the tribal sheikh and local leaders from Anbar to Kandahar who want to build a better future for their people.

Naval aviators and flight officers, we need you to dominate the airspace in times of conflict, but also to deliver food and medicine in times of humanitarian crisis.

And surface warfare officers and submariners, we need you to project American power across the vast oceans, but also to protect American principles and values when you pull into that foreign port, because for so many people around the world, you are the face of America.

These great opportunities come with great responsibilities. Indeed, midshipmen and presidents swear a similar oath — not only to protect and defend the American people, but the Constitution of the United States.

Yesterday I visited the National Archives and the halls that hold our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. I went there because as our national debate on how to deal with the security challenge that we face proceeds, we must remember this enduring truth: The values and ideals in those documents are not simply words written into aging parchment; they are the bedrock of our liberty and our security. We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to; not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe and keep us true to who we are.

Because when America strays from our values, it not only undermines the rule of law, it alienates us from our allies, it energizes our adversaries and it endangers our national security and the lives of our troops. So as Americans, we reject the false choice between our security and our ideals. We can and we must and we will protect both.

And that is just what you will pledge to do in a few moments when you raise your right hand and take your oath. But that simple act — by that simple act, you will accept the life of great sacrifice: long deployments, separation for loved ones, tests and trials that most Americans can't imagine. But that is the oath you take, the life you choose, the promise you make to America.

And today, this is the promise I make to you. It's a promise that as long as I am your commander in chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done.

This includes the job of bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end and pursuing a new comprehensive strategy to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And to get you the support you need, we're enlisting all elements of our national power — our diplomacy and development, our economic might and our moral suasion — so that you and the rest of our military do not bear the burden of our security alone.

We'll also ensure you can meet the missions of today, which is why we've halted reductions in Navy personnel and increased the size of the Marine Corps. And we will ensure you can meet the missions of tomorrow, which is why we're investing in the capabilities and technologies of tomorrow, the littoral combat ships, the most advanced submarines and fighter aircraft, so that you have what you need to succeed. In short, we will maintain America's military dominance and keep you the finest fighting force the world has ever seen.

Now, as you advance through the ranks and start families of your own, know that we will be with you every step of the way, increasing your pay, increasing child care and helping families deal with the stress and separation of war.

Because as my wife Michelle has come to see in her visits with military families, across the country, when a loved one is deployed, the whole family goes to war.

And finally whether you're 26 years old or 89, if you've worn the uniform and taken care of America, America will take care of you with a modern VA that keeps faith with our veterans and wounded warriors, with a 21st-century G.I. Bill that gives our veterans and their families the chance to live out their dreams.

This is America's covenant with you, a solemn commitment to all those who serve. And while our nation has not always fulfilled its duties to its armed forces, let there be no doubt, America's men and women in uniform have always fulfilled theirs. And that's exactly what America's Navy did just last month, in the seas off Somalia.

I will not recount the full story of those five days in April. Much of it is already known. Some of it will never be known. And that is how it should be. But here on this day, at this institution, it must be said.

The extraordinary precision and professionalism displayed that day was made possible, in no small measure, by the training, the discipline, and the leadership skills that so many of those officers learned at the United States Naval Academy.

And after that operation, after Captain Phillips was freed, I spoke to one of the Navy SEALs, who was there, and with the skipper of the USS Bainbridge, Commander Frank Castellano, Naval Academy Class of 1990. And I can tell you, as they would, that the success of that day belongs not only to a single commander or a small team of SEALs. It belongs to the many.

It belongs to all the sailors — officers and enlisted, not on one ship but several — who diligently stood their watch. It belongs to the pilots and airmen who gave cover overhead, to the intelligence specialists and negotiators and translators, to all the people who worked, day after night, on the scene and in command centers half a world away, to save a man they knew only as a fellow American.

And we recall that in those moments of danger and decision, these Americans did what they were trained to do. They remembered their skills. They did their duty. They performed their job. They stood their watch. They took their time and then they took their shot. And they brought that captain home.

And as Commander Castellano said later of his sailors, "Every citizen in the country should be happy and thankful that they're there." And I told him that we are.

So Class of 2009, months or years or decades from now, should you find yourself in a moment of danger, a moment of decision, and should you wonder, "What is expected of me? What should I do?" — just look at that ring on your finger. Remember your days on the bank of the Severn.

Remember all you achieved here and all that you learned here: devotion to honor, strength from courage. Live these values. Live these virtues. Emulate the deeds of those who have gone before you. Do this, and you will not only distinguish yourselves as sailors and Marines; you'll be in the lead as we write the next proud chapter in the story of this country that we love.

Congratulations, Class of 2009.

God bless the Navy. God bless the Marines Corps. And God bless the United States of America.

A Gut Reaction to the Obama National Security Speech: Getting Stuck in A "Long War"

Obama Speech on “National Security” at the National Archives (21 May)
Dick Cheney Speech on “National Security” at American Enterprise Institute (21 May)

Halfway through President Obama's speech on national security, including torture, the Guantanamo Bay detention regime, and the tensions in transparency and state secrets, I thought:

He's nailed it. Flat-out nailed it.

Obama illuminated with flashes of rhetoric: "“We cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values." He used the setting of the National Archives, with America's founding documents: "We must never – ever – turn our back on [the Constitution's] enduring principles for expediency's sake." He turned inside-out the Bushian cloak of national security and "our boys" when he criticised waterboarding and other techniques of torture:

They undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

In comparison to this powerful opening, the fear-mongering invocations, the evasions, and outright deceptions of Dick Cheney --- who is speaking as I type --- are not just tired and tiring excuses; they are close to obsolete.

But then, halfway through the speech, Obama got into trouble. Because it was then that he had to move from his powerful abstract of "values with security" to the realities of the Bushian policies that had wrenched them apart.

To solve the Guantanamo Bay riddle --- how to close the facility while maintaining the promise that not one "terrorist" would be free in America? --- Obama set out five categories of detainees. He was strongest when he spoke of the first category, those who would be tried in the US Federal criminal system: "Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear." And he was forthright on another category, the 21 detainees whose release has already been ordered by US judges: "The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings." He could just about get away with the category of 50 detainees who are not considered dangerous but who cannot be released to those home countries, setting aside the difficulty that no "third country" has yet accepted them.

But on two categories, Obama was vague to the point of contradiction. There are those who will be tried by the revived military commissions for "violations of laws of war". But which of the Guantanamo detainees are in this "war crimes" category? Is it the Al Qa'eda master planners like Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, whose terrorist actions do not fit the establshed category of war? Or is it Taliban commanders, who did wage war but did not necessarily carry out the atrocities --- which go far beyond fighting the US --- that are "war crimes"?

In fact, those above groups were covered in Obama's other, and most problematic category: "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people", expanded later by Obama in examples such as "people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans".

Obama's invocation of the category clearly covers cases, including that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, where the Bush Administration fouled up the possibility of successful prosecution through its mishandling of evidence and use of torture. however, the President's murkiness becomes evident when one notes the inclusion of Taliban commanders. As prisoners of war, they should have been released once the battle in Afghanistan was over, with the downfall of their movement at the end of 2001.

But there's the rub, isn't the it? The war is never over. Not in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, where "Taliban" are still fighting the US. And not beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan where, from Asia to Europe to the American continent, Al Qa'eda is always a menace.

That "long war", even perpetual war, definition is not a relic from the past. Before the powerful rhetoric that initially entranced me, Obama laid the trap:

We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.

It was the current President, not the past one, who renewed the declaration of war: "For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan." And it was Obama, and only Obama, who concluded his speech:

Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be the case a year from now, five years from now, and – in all probability – ten years from now.

This self-constructed admission --- we fight, we continue to fight, and we may always fight --- might explain why Obama's speech sagged badly in the second half as he discussed "transparency" vs. "security". To be honest, he should have left that section --- another attempt to justify both his decision to release the "torture memoranda" of the Bush Administration and his decision not to release photographs of abuse of detainees, his proposals to set guidelines for and oversight of "state secrets" --- at home. Although he may have the intention resolving this complex thicket, he gave the immediate game away when he said, in a time of "war", that he too can always invoke "national security": "Releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion, and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning and inaccurate brush, endangering them in theaters of war."

More immediately, long/perpetual war ensures that Guantanamo --- maybe with 50 or 100 detainees rather than 240 --- remains open past Obama's initial January 2010. Long/perpetual war has ensured that the tension of "values vs. security" has been taken from facilities in Iraq to other facilities and battlefields in Central Asia. And, even as Obama criticises the "fear-mongering" of the past, he can set up a binary of extremes to justify this middle-ground long/perpetual war:

There are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who...suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means.

For me, this is an intelligent President. This is a President with good intentions. But this is a President who errs in his artificial juxtaposition of a misguided "focus on the past" with his preferred "focus on the future". He does so because --- hanging over the past, over the future, and over now --- are the perpetual tensions in his mission to "forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals".

Others like Dick Cheney will claim that their "tough and durable approaches" were right. Others like Obama's military commanders will claim that their "tough and durable approaches" are working. And so --- as Guantanamo drags on, as Camp Bagram in Afghanistan expands, as hope for America turns to hostility against America in other parts of the world --- "national security" will sit along more abuses and more deaths.

EA Exclusive: Israel Unravels Obama's "Grand Design" for the Middle East

On Monday, Benjamin Netanyahu had a chat with President Obama. We wrote at the time, "The very public refusal of the Israeli Prime Minister [to accept separate Israeli and Palestinian states] is likely to damage, if not sink, far more than the American position on Israel-Palestine. The bigger casualty may be Obama’s strategy towards the Middle East and the Islamic world."

We wrote too soon. What happened after Netanyahu left the White House--- according to Israeli media, unnoticed by most US outlets --- is even more important.

President Obama, contrary to our earlier assessments, may have had a grand plan to offer on 4 June in Cairo. And Israeli officials, publicly and privately, have spent the last 96 hours ripping that plan apart.

The first revelation came on Wednesday in the Hebrew-language newspaper Yediot Arhonot. A report, summarised by the English-language Jerusalem Post, claimed that the Obama Administration was preparing the proposal of "a demilitarized Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, within the next four years....[The] independent, democratic and contiguous Palestinian state would not have its own army and would be forbidden from making military agreements with other states, in order to provide for Israel's security." Palestinians would give up their claim of a "right of return" to land previously held in Israel, with Europe and the US arranging compensation for refugees.

The newspaper, citing Palestinian sources, claimed that the plan was developed in recent talks between President Obama and King Abdullah. There would also be wider talks with Syria and Lebanon, and an effect to get a general agreement between Israel and Arab States.

Some of Yediot Arhonot's information is shaky. There is an inconsistency between East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital and the paper's later assertion of Jerusalem as an international city, and Abdullah's meetings in Washington were to brief him as an emissary for the plan. Still the revelations, when matched up to the diplomacy of Obama officials and allies like Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in recent weeks, make sense.

Most importantly, Israeli officials believe this is a possibility. That is why, on the plane back from Washington, Netanyahu advisors told reporters that Obama's two-state plan was "childish" and "juvenile". (I first read this news on Wednesday, again via Yediot Arhonot; it was later picked up by the Associated Press, although I saw no mention of it in US newspapers or television.) Far from contradicting those advisors, the Prime Minister --- speaking on Jerusalem Day, which commemorating the Israeli takeover of the city in the 1967 Six-Day War --- declared yesterday, "Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours."

Netanyahu has made other, balancing manoeuvres. He held out the prospect of renewed discussions with Syria, although he pointedly added that there must be no preconditions, such as a Syrian demand for the return of the Golan Heights. Israeli forces destroyed an illegal settlement yesterday.

These, however, are only sidesteps as Israel re-stakes its position both against specific US demands and the general Obama plan. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton renewed Obama's call for a halt to Israeli expansion, putting it in stronger terms, ""We want to see a stop to settlement construction - additions, natural growth, any kind of settlement activity - that is what the president has called for." The removal of one illegal settlement could not cover up the resounding silence of the Netanyahu Government to Clinton's demand.

More importantly, the Obama Administration appears to be stuck --- in the face of far-from-subtle Israeli opposition --- on how to re-shape the grand design for a Palestinian state and Arab-Israeli agreements. Having found a way to exclude Hamas from the "engagement", Obama has been unable to bring Netanyahu on board.

Which means --- with 13 days to the Cairo speech --- that Israel has sabotaged Plan A. Is there any prospect of a Plan B?

Video: Dissecting the Cheney Speech on National Security

Video and Transcript: Dick Cheney Speech on “National Security” at American Enterprise Institute (21 May)

Keith Olbermann: "Thank you, Sir, for admitting, obviously inadvertently, that you did not take a serious first look in the seven months and 23 days between your inauguration and 9/11. For that attack, Sir, you are culpable, morally, ethically. At best you were guilty of malfeasance and eternally-lasting stupidity. At worst, Sir, in the deaths of 9/11, you are negligent."

I am refraining from an analysis of former Vice President Dick Cheney's comments on national security yesterday, primarily because I hope that his speech --- which should be treated at most as self-justification --- will just go away. This is hope rather than expectation, however. Despite Dan Drezner's comment that President Obama has "adversaries more boneheaded than himself", Cheney's words will be treated as Tablets from the Mount by his supporters in the broadcast and print media.

So, as a pre-emptive strike against the upholding of Cheney's views as the thoughtful alternative in US homeland security and foreign policy, here are video commentaries from Lawrence O'Donnell and Keith Olbermann, followed by a thorough exposure of the former Vice President's distortions and deceptions by McClatchy News Service's Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay:




[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KFy6QhMvBM[/youtube]

Cheney's speech contained omissions, misstatements
WARREN STROBEL AND JONATHAN LANDAY

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative policy organization in Washington , Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques 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."

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

FBI Director Mueller Robert Muller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

— Cheney said that President Barack Obama's decision to release the four top-secret Bush administration memos on the interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to U.S. national security, and would help al Qaida train terrorists in how to resist U.S. interrogations.

However, Blair, who oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, said in his statement that he recommended the release of the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit using the controversial methods and that "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."

— Cheney said that the Bush administration "moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks."

The former vice president didn't point out that Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9-11 and that the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban .

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention, and Islamic extremists also have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring, nuclear-armed Pakistan .

— Cheney denied that there was any connection between the Bush administration's interrogation policies and the abuse of detainee at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which he blamed on "a few sadistic guards . . . in violation of American law, military regulations and simple decency."

However, a bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the approval of the techniques by senior Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld .

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," said the report issued by Sens. Carl Levin , D- Mich. , and John McCain , R- Ariz. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality and authorized their use against detainees."

— Cheney said that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques, and he cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammad , the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks.

He didn't mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior al Qaida operative to be captured after 9-11. Former FBI special agent Ali Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week that his interrogation of Zubaydah using traditional methods elicited crucial information, including Mohammed's alleged role in 9-11.

The decision to use the harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaida ," Soufan said. Former State Department official Philip Zelikow , who in 2005 was then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an internal fight to overhaul the Bush administration's detention policies, joined Soufan in his criticism.

— Cheney said that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence," but the Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make its case for the 2003 invasion.

Cheney made no mention of al Qaida operative Ali Mohamed al Fakheri , who's known as Ibn Sheikh al Libi , whom the Bush administration secretly turned over to Egypt for interrogation in January 2002 . While allegedly being tortured by Egyptian authorities, Libi provided false information about Iraq's links with al Qaida , which the Bush administration used despite doubts expressed by the DIA.

A state-run Libyan newspaper said Libi committed suicide recently in a Libyan jail.

— Cheney accused Obama of "the selective release" of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging that Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove that information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

"I've formally asked that (the information) be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained," Cheney said. "Last week, that request was formally rejected."

However, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA , which said that it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting the release of materials that are the subject of lawsuits.

— Cheney said that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Oct. 5, 2005 , that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it had mistakenly abducted a German citizen, Khaled Masri , from Macedonia in January 2004 .

Masri reportedly was flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan , where he allegedly was abused while being interrogated. He was released in May 2004 and dumped on a remote road in Albania .

In January 2007 , the German government issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives on charges of kidnapping Masri.

— Cheney slammed Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and criticized his effort to persuade other countries to accept some of the detainees.

The effort to shut down the facility, however, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates .

"One of the things that would help a lot is, in the discussions that we have with the states of which they (detainees) are nationals, if we could get some of those countries to take them back," Rice said in a Dec. 12, 2007 , interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. "So we need help in closing Guantanamo ."

— Cheney said that, in assessing the security environment after 9-11, the Bush team had to take into account "dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists."

Cheney didn't explicitly repeat the contention he made repeatedly in office: that Saddam cooperated with al Qaida , a linkage that U.S. intelligence officials and numerous official inquiries have rebutted repeatedly.

The late Iraqi dictator's association with terrorists vacillated and was mostly aimed at quashing opponents and critics at home and abroad.

The last State Department report on international terrorism to be released before 9-11 said that Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President ( George H.W.) Bush in 1993 in Kuwait ."

A Pentagon study released last year, based on a review of 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the U.S.-led invasion, concluded that while Saddam supported militant Palestinian groups — the late terrorist Abu Nidal found refuge in Baghdad , at least until Saddam had him killed — the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with al Qaida .