Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |   E-mail Dan  |  
Page 4 of 5   <       >

Are We Closer to War?

The Cheney Factor

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Cheney leaves Sunday for a trip to the Middle East. In yesterday's column, I suggested that reporters try to find out what he tells the Israelis about Iran. That's even more important today.

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that, ever since December's National Intelligence Estimate threw cold water on Bush and Cheney's insistence that Iran was on the brink of nuclear weapons development, a preventative attack on Iran was no longer in the cards. But Bush has repeatedly brushed off the NIE's findings. Administration pronouncements blaming Iran for fomenting attacks in Iraq are on the upswing again. And now Cheney's on his way to Israel.

It's still not really beyond Bush and Cheney to order a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran. But the more likely scenario is that there will be an asymmetrical U.S. response to a (possibly trumped up) Iranian provocation. And the most likely scenario is that the U.S. will encourage (or certainly not oppose) an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities -- which in turn would lead the U.S. to come to Israel's defense should Iran strike back.

That's been a favorite Cheney scenario for more than a year. See, for instance, this Steve Clemons blog post from last May, later corroborated by the New York Times. And see my June 4 column, Cheney, By Proxy.

No Torture Override

Thomas Ferraro writes for Reuters: "President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress on Tuesday upheld his veto of a bill to ban the CIA from subjecting enemy detainees to interrogation methods denounced by critics as torture.

"A largely party-line vote of 225-188 in the Democratic-led House of Representatives fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to override the president."

Seeking Clarity From the CIA

I had a not particularly fruitful conversation yesterday with CIA Director of Public Affairs Mark Mansfield. I was trying to get a bit more clarity about his letter to the editor in the Sunday New York Times, in which he appeared to suggest that the interrogation measures banned by the Army Field Manual are now banned by the CIA, as well. That sounded to me like a big concession -- and big news.

Mansfield wrote his letter in response to a March 2 Times editorial, which listed the field manual's eight specifically prohibited practices:

* Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.

* Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.

* Applying beatings, electric shocks, burns or other forms of physical pain.

* Waterboarding.


<             4        >


© 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive