You know, there's rumors on the internets. And IRL.

That Cheney had a lot to do with the push to use torture, and with the use of torture to try and extract information regarding a (nonexistent) Iraq/al-Qaeda link, is a story that's kind of a bigger deal, if you ask me, than what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it. In the former case, the vice-president of the United States actively encouraged acts that a literal skimming of the applicable law should've indicated was illegal, and which experts in interrogation would've largely advised against, in contradiction to our historical traditions and reputation, and without forethought as to whether the information so obtained would be useful and what if any blow-back (such as, say, a threat to US service-members abroad in retaliation if such despicable doings ever came to light) might result. In other words--Cheney's actions seem to be illegal, reckless, ignorant, and cruel, with a side-order of, "Seriously, you still think that was a good idea?" Whereas Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may or may not have been entirely or partially briefed about something that she was either told the CIA might have as tool available to them, but which it seems from the time-line was already occurring, in such a way that she could neither prevent it, or possibly even talk about it if it was consider "classified". For people to equate these things, or be distracted following her story, should give her serious pause--because it looks like she's getting smeared by a red herring. It better get Congress' attention--this nonsense game of blame-distribution is a game to cover up Cheney's culpability. He's trying to game them. Seriously--he shouldn't do that.

For a sample of what's hit the MSM--on MS-MBC:



(Oh, to see Cheney be interviewed by Rachel Maddow. They could make it a Pay-per-view, name any price, and I would be there. But he's too big a punk, I'd guess.)



That would've been an actual POW (official of a sovereign nation that we invaded without provocation, by the way) clearly subject to the Geneva Conventions, that the "question" about these techniques pertained to.

And it's been known for a while--old memes:




(Um--the results were lies that led to a war that has killed over 4000 of our servicemembers, hundreds of coalition troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and....he so is guilty, y'know?)


But the question is: Why? Because, you'd think if he as an official of the Bush Administration did care about terror, he might have started earlier--like by creating a task force on terrorism earlier in 2001 when meetings with Richard Clarke indicated it was necessary. And post-9/11, you'd think his interest would be more centered on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and other ranking members of al-Qaeda, not persuing a link in Iraq.

Except--and please, I'm not accusing him or alleging anything, mind you. Think of this as a "tab dump."

Cheney had a continuing relationship with Halliburton.

Halliburton did so well.

It could be questioned whether Cheney had a role in Halliburton getting contracts for the Iraq war effort.

Which I guess was better for the outfit as a whole, than only doing business there under dodgy subsidiary KBR which I understand was doing business there as early as 2001. Or wait, off and on throughout the '90's.


I guess what I'm distinctly not getting at is that despite the financial connections Cheney had prior to and during the Iraq War, I certainly can't not say that the alleged enhanced interrogation techniques were used to create a false pretext for a war that would in any way have been beneficial financially to one of the Bush Administration's principal officials, because that would be a really nasty thing to say aloud or in print, and I can't prove it's true, and likewise, if it were true, Cheney would be a seriously evil person and the next best thing to a traitor, just as the crappy service Halliburton gave to the troops in a time of war was also suspect.

In other words, torture can be done for reasons, and then it might be done for reasons. There's knowing about it--and then there's doing something about it. For some time, Pelosi might have known something about it. She and Congress have an opportunity to do something about it.