FREAK OF THE WEEK: Former Vice President Dick Cheney

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who slithered out of his secret undisclosed location to frighten the American people into opposing President Obama.

I know, Dick Cheney is an easier target than a friend’s face while duck hunting. But his national security speech this past week was nothing more than a desperate and transparent attempt to rescue his flagging image by using 9/11 imagery to scare Americans into submission.

Dick used his speech to defend Bush administration policies that even George W. Bush isn’t defending anymore. He rehashed all the failed arguments of the past administration, but puts them forward as factual and credible.

Dick warns of weapons of mass destruction. You know, the ones that were famously never found.

Dick warns about the dangers in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. In truth, going into Iraq only emboldened the terrorists and created a power vacuum that allowed Al Qaida to flourish there.

Dick talks of the abuses of power at Abu Ghraib as a problem of only “a few sadistic prison guards [who] abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency.” Again with the “few bad apples” defense? This kind of abuse is a systemic problem and those who were prosecuted were pawns in a greater game that goes far up the chain of command and needs to be investigated. But also Dick, if the military shouldn’t be violating American law, military regulation and simple decency, why is it that you continue to defend torture?

Worse, Dick promotes the practice of waterboarding/torturing alleged detainees, even though it doesn’t work. Even sensible Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree that waterboarding is torture. Conservative radio personality Erich "Mancow" Muller even allowed himself to be waterboarded, thinking the exercise would prove that waterboarding is not torture. Instead, he lasted only six seconds and concluded, “It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke. It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back. … It was instantaneous, … and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

Most notably, Dick said the country is less safe today because of Obama’s policies.

But even Tom Ridge – the Bush administration’s original Homeland Security Secretary – doesn’t agree. Regarding Cheney’s criticism that Obama’s decisions to close the Guantanamo Bay military detention camp and release the so-called torture memos made the country less safe, Ridge told CNN’s John King, “I disagree with Dick Cheney. Waterboarding is a matter of debate, but it’s no longer an issue. Debate around memos and waterboarding don’t make us less safe.”

In his speech, Dick said, “To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target.” So why is it, Dick, that your first Homeland Security Secretary disagrees with you?

THEM DEMS ARE FREAKY TOO

Dick also lashed out at Obama for wanting to close Guantanamo Bay, “The president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.” Dick added, “Attorney General [Eric] Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept terrorists here in the homeland.”

There is so much wrong with Dick’s statements, but what’s worse is that many Democrats are buying Dick’s illogic.

First let’s examine what Dick said. He makes it sound like the detainees will be brought to U.S. to carry on with their lives and live among us, like a paroled sex offender. In truth, the detainees would be brought and held in high-security prisons that can indeed handle them. After all, we already incarcerate serial killers, child rapists, and all other evildoers, (to use a word Dick enjoys). Theodore “The Unibomber” Kaczynski, Richard “The Shoe Bomber” Reid, Charles Manson and Oklahoma City bomber co-conspirator Terry Nichols are all adequately housed in American prisons.

Omar Kadhr is one of those being held at Guantanamo Bay. He was captured by American forces at the age of 15 after allegedly throwing a grenade in Afghanistan that killed a U.S. soldier and has been held there for six years. Does Dick really think American courts and prisons couldn’t handle Kadhr?

Actually, Kadhr’s situation is exactly the reason so many don’t want to bring the detainees to the “homeland” – because the case of them is so flimsy, so many laws were broken in their detainment, and many have not been charged with a crime, that the real fear among Dick and his adherents is that the rationale for Guantanamo Bay will be exposed as a charade and sham.

But for Democrats, the real issue is allowing the fear mongering to take hold. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters this week: “We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States.” This is cowardly and pathetic.

And then came the vote on Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo. With 90 of the 100 senators voting in opposition, Democrats and Republicans joined together to allow NIMBYism (the sentiment of “not in my backyard”) to rule the day. Democratic senators have been lining up to say they don’t want the detainees brought to their states.

As for Obama, in his speech he said that since some of the detainees haven’t actually committed a crime – but may pose a threat to America – it would be illegal to incarcerate them. So, he wants to make new law that would make prolonged and indefinite detention legal.

Was this really the change we were supposed to believe in?

Obama’s security czar needs a lesson in Canada

It’s bad enough when some no-name member of Congress from Texas clings to the xenophobic falsehood that the 9/11 terrorist attackers snuck into the United States through Canada. But when the president’s Homeland Security Secretary is equally misinformed, Obama, we have a problem.

First off, let’s clear the air once and for all. The 9/11 hijackers did NOT – repeat, did NOT – enter the United States by way of Canada. In fact, they entered the United States LEGALLY. So if dumbass American bureaucrats want to fix the problem of foreign terrorists on American soil, start with fixing your own immigration system and stop blaming the Canadian border.

That said, it is a shameful embarrassment that Janet Napolitano – President Obama’s security czar – would stoop to the same disingenuous level of blame Canada.

All this came to a head Monday night when Napolitano gave an interview to the CBC, Canada’s public broadcast network. First she said, “To the extent that terrorists have come into our country, or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it has been across the Canadian border.”

Never mind the fact that she’s just plain wrong, the CBC’s Neil Macdonald then asked, “Are you talking about the 9/11 perpetrators?” And unbelievably, she said, “Not just those, but others as well.”

NOT JUST THOSE? Are you kidding me? Napolitano – Obama’s handpicked choice to “keep America safe” – is either knowingly lying or sadly ignorant.

The next day, Napolitano tried to correct the error by saying that she “misunderstood” the question. Um, Ms. Napolitano, the question really wasn’t all that confusing.

So she went from blame Canada to blame the media. Real helpful.

In her follow-up statement, Napolitano said, “I know that the September 11^th hijackers did not come through Canada to the United States. There are other instances, however, when suspected terrorists attempted to enter our country from Canada to the United States. Some of those are well known to the public – such as the Millennium Bomber – while others are not, due to security reasons.”

Two things are troubling about her statement: First, it was Canada that HELPED stop Ahmed Ressam from crossing the British Columbia/Washington state border and foiled his supposed plan to blow up the Los Angeles airport back in 1999.

Secondly, that was one incident. Oh, Napolitano says there are others that she can’t talk about for “security reasons.” That not only is very Bush-ian, but how can we trust someone who would so easily revert back to the horribly wrong 9/11-Canada connection.

But even more troubling were Napolitano’s comments during that CBC interview that she wants a “real border” between the United States and Canada. “I know that the pattern at the Canadian border has been informality.” Napolitano – a former governor of Arizona – also sees no difference between the Canadian and Mexican borders.

This is pathetic.

First of all, the border between the United States and Canada is indeed REAL. Just ask all those people who line up at the border –sometimes for hours at a time – to cross it in order to work or shop or play tourist. To listen to Napolitano, you’d think the crossings at places like Detroit and Niagara Falls are lawless free-for-alls. And as an American living in Canada, trust me, Ms. Napolitano, it’s a REAL BORDER!

But perhaps most troubling is that she sees no difference between America’s borders with Canada and Mexico. The U.S.-Canada relationship is primarily one of business and trade, and the treatment of the border needs to reflect that.

In Mexico, the issues are illegal immigration and illegal drugs, so it makes sense that there would be a different policy on that border. To punish Canada because of the sins of Mexico is shortsighted and, frankly, offensive.

Sadly, Canada’s wandering Conservative government seems to be more than willing to give Napolitano a pass. Napolitano’s equivalent in Canada – Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan – seemed unconcerned when he said, “I don’t believe that there’s an effort to change the level of security at the Canadian border.”

Is he on crack? It’s already happening.

If Obama was being honest a few months ago when he said he “loves Canada, then he needs to put his Homeland Security Secretary on notice that such gross mistreatment of the United States’ strongest ally will not be tolerated.