DOCSLIB.ORG

WTH Happened to the Blue Wave? What Went Wrong (And Right) in the Polls, Who Will Control the Senate, and What It All Means for the Next President

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WTH Happened to the Blue Wave? What Went Wrong (And Right) in the Polls, Who Will Control the Senate, and What It All Means for the Next President WTH happened to the Blue Wave? What went wrong (and right) in the polls, who will control the Senate, and what it all means for the next president Episode #77 | November 6, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Mo Elleithee Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast. I can't believe I can say this, and it's even more apt this Marc Thiessen: If there was ever the name for a podcast in 2020, that was it. Danielle Pletka: You're not kidding. It was a brilliant inspiration. Marc Thiessen: We saw it, we saw it coming, 2020. We got the perfect name for a podcast. Danielle Pletka: All that's missing is a meteorite. So what are we talking about today? Marc Thiessen: Well, we're talking about whether the guy who introduces our podcast is going to have a job. Danielle Pletka: And that's a good question. Certainly a pretty great night for a lot of Republicans, but it's still an ambiguous night for Donald J. Trump. Marc Thiessen: Yep. As we record this, it is Thursday afternoon and we still don't have a president. I'll tell you what we do know though, the polling industry is in a world of hurt. The polls got it so wrong. We kept hearing, "Oh yeah, they've adjusted newspaper, The Washington Post, had Biden winning Wisconsin by 17 points. Seventeen points. Danielle Pletka: That poll was a disgrace. Marc Thiessen: And I will tell you, if you're a Conservative, you're looking at that and you see there was all the polls saying that Donald Trump was not going to win, that there was a blue wave coming, that the popular vote was going to be through the roof. And by the way, everyone talks about the RCP averages like, "Well, the RCP 2 averages we're closer." That's because of Trafalgar. That's because a few Trumpy polls that got it right were pulling up the averages. If you take out Trafalgar from the RCP averages, it's all wrong. They just got it completely wrong. Danielle Pletka: Right. Marc Thiessen: And the reality is that this country, a lot of people supported Donald Trump. Despite four years of calling him a racist and a bigot and a ... Danielle Pletka: And a Russian stooge. Marc Thiessen: ... Russian stooge and trying to impeach him and all the rest of it, he's still hanging in there and it's darn close. Danielle Pletka: It is darn close. Look, I can't stand all of these crazy town conspiracy theories that are furthered by social media. But I think it's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that the media and the establishment political elite that is engaged in polling and in political commentary and in newspaper, the editorial pages of newspapers, actually deliberately got it wrong. They have nothing but contempt for Conservatives. Marc Thiessen: Not just for Trump. Danielle Pletka: No, not just for Trump, not just for Trump. How many times have you heard this in me when we were off camera when I was on TV. Marc Thiessen: On your panel? Danielle Pletka: Yeah. Someone said that to me, and I won't say who, because ... Marc Thiessen: Knowing you're a Republican, they basically called you a racist to your face? Danielle Pletka: Yeah, yeah. Marc Thiessen: Wow. Danielle Pletka: Unbelievable. And you know what is remarkable is notwithstanding this coalition of contemptuous, editorial page editors and pollsters and commentators and Never Trumpers, people still voted for the man. Marc Thiessen: Yep. Danielle Pletka: I mean, how out of touch are these people? Marc Thiessen: Well, a couple of things to think about. One, I wrote a column last week before the election, a thought experiment on what the Trump presidency would look like with the mute button on. And just all the things that he's done. And I concluded by saying, of course you can't put the mute button on the presidency. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 3 I'm a former speech writer, a presidential speech writer, I know the President's words matter. But you know what? A lot of the country does follow the Trump presidency with a mute button on. Donald Trump says something crosswise to a reporter in the press briefing room and official Washington sets its hair on fire. Outside the beltway and, as what Scott Walker calls the 46 square miles surrounded by reality, out in reality, they're not setting their hair on fire all the time over every dumb thing he says. Marc Thiessen: They're looking at what he does and a lot of people liked what he did. I mean, the poll that struck me the most going into this election is that 56% of Americans, Gallup poll, said they're better off now than there were four years ago. That is in the middle of a pandemic, in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, in the middle of racial unrest, they still said they were better off. So it shouldn't have come to a surprise to everybody in Washington that he did as well as he did. Danielle Pletka: Right. And he did as well as he did despite desperately trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So if Donald Trump doesn't make it, and let's just say, if he does make it, it'll be a total squeaker. But if he doesn't make it, I think, yes, of course, all of these things that we've talked about endlessly on these podcasts, his bad judgment, his affinity for strong men leaders, notwithstanding the policies of his administration. His ambiguity and inability to denounce people who like him no matter how loathsome they may be, all of those things, I think, didn't kill him as much as that first debate. Marc Thiessen: Absolutely. So I've had a theory. We kept hearing, I've talked about this a lot, if you watch Fox News and you see me on the air, but we heard a lot during this who wears a MAGA hat in the house but takes it off before he goes out, right? A guy who won't put the Trump sign on his lawn ... Danielle Pletka: As an etiquette specialist, let me just say that anybody who wears a hat in their house is not allowed. Marc Thiessen: And the coastal elites have spoken. But I guess it's the Australian coast. But I've been talking about the reluctant Trump voter, which is a different animal. The reluctant Trump voter is one of those 20% of people in 2016 who said, "I voted for him, but I don't like him." The reluctant Trump voter are these people who say, "Yeah, he's better on the economy. I trust him more. I prefer his policies to the policies of Joe Biden," Gallup poll, 49% plurality prefer Trump's policies to Biden's policies, "but I just can't take the chaos, I just can't take the ... " Danielle Pletka: The exhaustion. Marc Thiessen: There was a level of Trump exhaustion in the country because in the middle of the pandemic, fighting with reporters about fake news when people just want information, right? Danielle Pletka: And also the constant character assassination. I mean, again, I think you've detailed very nicely how Dr. Fauci has actually given misleading information to the country. You had a good piece on that in the Post. He's not the saint that AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 4 people say, but on the other hand, Donald Trump freaking control yourself. Marc Thiessen: Exactly. And so, he realized that he was screwing up with the pandemic, so all of a sudden a few months before the election kicked in, he was having these briefings where he's just laying out facts, not getting into fights, trying to be normal, be presidential and all the rest of it. He had a normal convention, he did all this and then we get to the first presidential debate and something like 73 million Americans tuned in to watch that, right? And you don't get that kind of attention, even a State of the Union Address only has 40 or 50 million people. Danielle Pletka: And he comes across as a son of a bitch. Marc Thiessen: Yeah. Danielle Pletka: That's a nice word. Marc Thiessen: And I think a lot of people watched that debate and said, "I'm done." Danielle Pletka: Yep. Don't need to tune in anymore. Marc Thiessen: Don't need to tune in anymore, I'm done. If he had done the second debate twice, I think he would have won. Danielle Pletka: If you think this is about 100,000 votes around the country potentially, absolutely, I couldn't agree more. Now let's just quickly talk about Joe Biden, because the way that Joe Biden designed his campaign, and you and I both said, "We'll either call it brilliant or we'll call it the stupidest thing anyone ever did." Well, it's edging towards brilliant, is that he had and made this a referendum on Donald Trump camera hog, right? And so, now the question is if Joe Biden ends up winning this race, ends up being crowned President, I realize that's not the right term, but it seems okay.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'I-Bates (18577-18976)'
    CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WASHINGTON, D.C. 2D31IMl999 ACTION MEMO Clt-1232-03 30 September 2003 FOR: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE .L DepSec Action --~ FROM: General Richard 8. Myers, CJCs~C/(f'( SUBJECT: Service Deployment Force Ratios 1 In response to your inquiry . the following information is provided. 1 As you know. Services' Force Rotation Goals were discussed at length during ELABORATE CROSSBOW m, culminating in a brief to you on 15 September. As a result, a common method of force deployment ratio measurement has been agreed upon: number of months deployed versus number of months non­ deployed. • As \Ve have discussed, force ratios will continue to differ by Services for a variety of reasons, and each Service builds its force deployment ratio goals based on the competing demands of long-standing global contingency commitments, sustaining readiness and managing force tempo. , Current Service Ratio -Goals (by Service) are: • Navy I :3: 6 months deployed for every 18 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is each fleet unit. • Marines I :3: 6 months deployed for every l 8 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is a battalion. • Anny I :4: 6 months deployed for every 24 months nonwdeployed. Unit of measure is a brigade. • Air Force 1:4: 3 months deployed for every 12 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is the Air Expeditionary Force. • Recommend an upcoming session be set aside to meet with Service Chiefs to further explore underlying force rotation goal rationales. RECOMMENDATION: OSD and CJCS staffs coordinate meeting with Service Chiefs regarding force rotation goal rationales.
    [Show full text]
  • My Debate with Marc Thiessen
    David FraktProfessor Barry Law School Reserve JAG Officer and Former Guantanamo defense counsel Posted: September 18, 2010 01:40 PM My Debate with Marc Thiessen Earlier this week, I debated General Michael Hayden (USAF, retired), former director of both the CIA and NSA, and Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter and current columnist for the Washington Post, as part of the "Intelligence Squared" Debate series from New York. I was joined by Stephen Jones, an accomplished attorney best known for defending Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber. The specific proposition debated was whether terrorists (or more accurately suspected terrorists) should be treated as enemy combatants, as opposed to handling within the traditional criminal justice system, but the debate covered a wide range of issues in the conduct of the war on terrorism. According to the audience, Stephen and I won the debate handily. For those interested in seeing or hearing the debate, it will be televised on the Bloomberg News Channel starting Monday, and it will also be available soon as a podcast from NPR, or you can watch the unedited version of the debate here. For the most part, Thiessen and Hayden voiced the usual Bush Administration talking points. Thiessen is the author of the bestselling book "Courting Disaster: How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" which Jane Mayer of the New Yorker described as the "unofficial Bible of torture apologists." Thiessen's basic argument was that the detention and interrogation practices of the prior administration were effective, as proven by the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks domestically since 9/11.
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Are Deaths of Despair? Nobel Prize Winner Sir Angus Deaton on the Other Epidemic
    WTH are deaths of despair? Nobel Prize winner Sir Angus Deaton on the other epidemic Episode #52 | May 21, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Sir Angus Deaton Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on now? Marc Thiessen: We're talking about deaths of despair. Danielle Pletka: Oh, that's cheerful. Marc Thiessen: Well, you're right, it's not cheerful, Dany. I mean, look, we are now experiencing the worst economic devastation since the Great Depression. We have more than 33 damage is not being borne by the elites, who work in the information economy and who can telework and do everything by Zoom. It's being borne by those at the middle and the bottom of the economic ladder. For what Trump called the forgotten Americans. People, who were finally doing better under him for a while, and now, all of a sudden, that progress has been wiped out. Danielle Pletka: The phrase, deaths of despair, that we're using, comes from this new book out by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, two economists from Princeton University. It was actually Dr. Case who coined this term, deaths of despair, in talking about people who've really lost all hope. I think that our image of the Depression is one where we see people walking across the dust bowl with all their family belongings on the back of a cart and their ragged children, the iconic photos of this.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes
    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 a Message from the Founders
    LEADERSHIP | PUBLIC SERVICE | FELLOWSHIPS | SELF-SUFFICIENCY | FREE SYSTEMS | DIGNITY | LIBERTY ANNUAL REPORT 2015 A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDERS “WE ARE PLEASED TO REFLECT ON A YEAR OF CONTINUED GROWTH AND ADVANCES THROUGH OUR GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MANY IMPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND CAUSES. WE REMAIN DEDICATED TO OUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE YEARS TO COME. OUR THANKS TO PARTNERS, SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS OF THE FOUNDATION FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT, INTEREST AND SUPPORT.” -DON AND JOYCE RUMSFELD RUMSFELD FOUNDATION IN REVIEW 81 GRADUATE FELLOWS $3.9 MILLION + IN 135 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS MILITARY GRANTS FELLOWS 3 GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP $3.7 MILLION + IN 4 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS CONFERENCES MICROFINANCE GRANTS CONFERENCES Established in 2007, the Rumsfeld Foundation rewards leadership and public service at Mission home and supports the growth of free political and free economic systems abroad. REWARDING LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT HOME Effective leadership and dedicated public servants are essential for our country’s success. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS TROOPS Encouraging gifted scholars to Few have committed more in our serve the nation by pursuing a nation’s service than those who career in public service and have served and sacrificed in policy-relevant fields defense of our country ENCOURAGING THE GROWTH OF FREER SYSTEMS IN GREATER CENTRAL ASIA We believe free systems, economic and political, provide the most opportunities for their people. CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Is Going on with the Retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker On
    WTH is going on with the retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker on withdrawal, and the consequences for US national security Episode #115 | September 1, 2021 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ryan Crocker Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: I've never been more disgusted in my life with what's happening with what America is doing than I am right now watching the last planes leaving Kabul, leaving behind American citizens, thousands of Afghans who risked their lives to help us, the blood of 13 dead Americans and hundreds of Afghan civilians. It is the most shameful thing I have witnessed in my entire career in Washington. I'm shifting between absolute abject pain and rage as I watch this happen. Dany, what are your thoughts? Danielle Pletka: It is the worst thing in the world that a country like ours, we've suffered defeats, we've made mistakes, we've done terrible things. Never, I hope willfully, but by mistake, we've done terrible things. And we have betrayed allies before. We've not done enough for people who need us. We've let down the Kurds in Iraq, we've let down the Syrian people, but we have never actually gone in and rescued a group of people who in turn sacrificed all for us and for our security as Afghans did, because make no mistake, we were not in Afghanistan for the Afghan people.
    [Show full text]
  • Trumpism on College Campuses
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works Title Trumpism on College Campuses Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1d51s5hk Journal QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY, 43(2) ISSN 0162-0436 Authors Kidder, Jeffrey L Binder, Amy J Publication Date 2020-06-01 DOI 10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Qualitative Sociology (2020) 43:145–163 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-020-09446-z Trumpism on College Campuses Jeffrey L. Kidder1 & Amy J. Binder 2 Published online: 1 February 2020 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract In this paper, we report data from interviews with members of conservative political clubs at four flagship public universities. First, we categorize these students into three analytically distinct orientations regarding Donald Trump and his presidency (or what we call Trumpism). There are principled rejecters, true believers, and satisficed partisans. We argue that Trumpism is a disunifying symbol in our respondents’ self- narratives. Specifically, right-leaning collegians use Trumpism to draw distinctions over the appropriate meaning of conservatism. Second, we show how political clubs sort and shape orientations to Trumpism. As such, our work reveals how student-led groups can play a significant role in making different political discourses available on campuses and shaping the types of activism pursued by club members—both of which have potentially serious implications for the content and character of American democracy moving forward. Keywords Americanpolitics.Conservatism.Culture.Highereducation.Identity.Organizations Introduction Donald Trump, first as a candidate and now as the president, has been an exceptionally divisive force in American politics, even among conservatives who typically vote Republican.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion Talk Radio Is Turning Million...Nto Conservatives
    https://nyti.ms/2SFJqYc Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives The medium is at the heart of Trumpism. By Paul Matzko Dr. Matzko is the author of “The Radio Right: How a Band of Broadcasters Took on the Federal Government and Built the Modern Conservative Movement.” Oct. 9, 2020 At least 15 million Americans every week tune into one of the top 15 talk radio programs. They are not monolithically conservative, but they are overwhelmingly so. A dozen of the top 15 shows feature conservative or libertarian hosts — with devoted followings like Rush Limbaugh’s “Dittoheads” or Michael Savage’s “Savage Nation” — and only one leans left. Talk radio may face an aging audience, a decline in ad revenue and competition from new mass media forms like podcasts, but there are still millions of Americans whose politics are shaped by what they listen to on talk radio all day, every day. Fox News gets more of the attention for shaping conservative opinion and for its influence on the Trump administration, but we shouldn’t overlook the power of conservative talk radio. The conservatism of talk radio only partly overlaps with institutional conservatism, that of right-wing Washington think tanks, magazines and the Republican Party itself. By the early 2000s, it had embraced a version of conservatism that is less focused on free markets and small government and more focused on ethnonationalism and populism. It is, in short, the core of Trumpism — now and in the future, with or without a President Trump. Talk radio’s power is rooted in the sheer volume of content being produced each week.
    [Show full text]
  • Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program
    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Robert E. Ebel E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org March 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-600-1 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066001zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program author Robert E. Ebel March 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decision- makers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Tow Center for Digital Journalism CONSERVATIVE A Tow/Knight Report NEWSWORK A Report on the Values and Practices of Online Journalists on the Right Anthony Nadler, A.J. Bauer, and Magda Konieczna Funded by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Boundaries and Tensions Within the Online Conservative News Field 15 Training, Standards, and Practices 41 Columbia Journalism School Conservative Newswork 3 Executive Summary Through much of the 20th century, the U.S. news diet was dominated by journalism outlets that professed to operate according to principles of objectivity and nonpartisan balance. Today, news outlets that openly proclaim a political perspective — conservative, progressive, centrist, or otherwise — are more central to American life than at any time since the first journalism schools opened their doors. Conservative audiences, in particular, express far less trust in mainstream news media than do their liberal counterparts. These divides have contributed to concerns of a “post-truth” age and fanned fears that members of opposing parties no longer agree on basic facts, let alone how to report and interpret the news of the day in a credible fashion. Renewed popularity and commercial viability of openly partisan media in the United States can be traced back to the rise of conservative talk radio in the late 1980s, but the expansion of partisan news outlets has accelerated most rapidly online. This expansion has coincided with debates within many digital newsrooms. Should the ideals journalists adopted in the 20th century be preserved in a digital news landscape? Or must today’s news workers forge new relationships with their publics and find alternatives to traditional notions of journalistic objectivity, fairness, and balance? Despite the centrality of these questions to digital newsrooms, little research on “innovation in journalism” or the “future of news” has explicitly addressed how digital journalists and editors in partisan news organizations are rethinking norms.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka Is Senior Vice President for Foreign And
    Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka is senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she oversees the Institute’s work on foreign and defense issues. Ms. Pletka writes regularly on national security matters with a special focus on Iran, the Middle East (Syria, Israel, ISIS), and South Asia. She is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Before joining AEI, Ms. Pletka was a longtime senior professional staff member for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where she specialized in the Near East and South Asia as the point person on Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. Ms. Pletka has authored, coauthored, and coedited a variety of studies, monographs, and book chapters, including the report “Tehran Stands Atop the Syria-Iran Alliance” (Atlantic Council, 2017); the chapter “America in Decline” in “Debating the Obama Presidency” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016); “America vs. Iran: The Competition for the Future of the Middle East” (AEI, 2014); “Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan” (AEI, 2012); “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran” (AEI, 2011); and “Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats” (AEI, 2008). A regular guest on television, Ms. Pletka appears frequently on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Her broadcast appearances also include CBS News, CNN, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. She has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, and Politico, among other outlets. She has an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a B.A.
    [Show full text]