philosophy[hy paper

The assignment is below, please scroll down.

In order to grade your assignments quickly and efficiently and provide useful feedback, it is best to have your papers submitted as a Word doc or docx in speedgrader. That format allows me to make comments in the margins.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
philosophy[hy paper
Get an essay WRITTEN FOR YOU, Plagiarism free, and by an EXPERT!
Order Essay

For those without Microsoft Word, once you save/export the file, like a google doc., to your computers, you cannot open them in Word on your computers, but you can upload them to Canvas.

Go to this page for instructions:

https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/7654/how-to-export-documents-from-google-docs-to-your-computer/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Then scroll down and read AFTER the title – ” Download One or More Documents From Google Drive”

To view my comments within your papers (please do this!):

Go to the gradebook. Select the red link to the Assignment. Select the link “view feedback”

Here is a link with more detailed info. https://community.canvaslms.com/docs/DOC-10542 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Please let me know soon if you are still having trouble seeing my comments.

Now, the assignment:

Issue—Waterboarding

Is it torture?

Summary
In 2006, the U.S. media revealed that the Bush administration had authorized waterboarding on “detainees” in the War on Terrorism. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which an immobilized prisoner has water poured over his or her face. The experience simulates drowning. Unlike other interrogation techniques, waterbaording does not leave physical evidence that is was applied. In 2014, a senate report on interrogation techniques used on detainees was released. The interview (copied below) between former Vice President Dick Cheney and Chuck Todd addresses the content of the report.

Your assignment is to represent Cheney’s argument into standard logical form, and then evaluate it. Concentrate only on his argument(s) related to waterboarding. The issue is whether it is torture.

Grading Criteria:

Everyone’s paper must have the following structure:

1-Representation of the argument(s) from ordinary language into Standard Logical Format (Numbered premises including only the logically relevant language. One premise per line–do not combine premises).

2-Recognition of the elements of his argument.

3-Application of the standards for evaluating the quality of an argument.

4-Proper spelling and grammar.

For 1-3 above, include a heading in you assignment to insure you address each required portion (see rubric below for details). Part one should be single spaced, numbered premises and conclusion. Include only the relevant language in the premises in complete sentences. Be sure the conclusion does not include any premises in it. Parts 2 and 3 should be essay format, double-spaced. The entire assignment should take no more than 5 pages or so. You must copy and paste the grading rubric (below) to the end of your paper and submit it online through Canvas. 5 points will automatically be deducted if the rubric is missing. Do NOT include the interview in your submission.

SAMPLE ARGUMENT:

Sample Issue: Arming Teachers
Part I: SLF (A representation of an imagined argument from an opinion piece or similar)
Argument I.
1. Arming teachers might deter some potential shooters, but the negative effects outweigh the positive.
2. The likelihood of a school shooter is actually quite low.
3. (statistics can be employed here to support P2)
4. The likelihood of a teacher, administrator or student harming themselves or others with the teacher’s gun by accident are very high.
5. (Stats here regarding accidental shootings).
6. Therefore, arming teachers is a bad idea.

Alternative framing of Argument I (you would only want to use one of these–whichever you think is the best version. The alternative is deductive, Modus Ponens, as the conclusion follows with necessity IF the premises are true, but it might not be the best framing or most charitable interpretation, as even though it will be valid, it might not be sound).

1.If arming teachers will likely lead to more harm than not arming them, then we ought not arm teachers.
2.Arming teachers will likely lead to more harm….
3.So, we ought not arm them.

Argument II (there might be more than two separate arguments leading to the same conclusion, I am just simplifying it here for the example).

1.Teachers are educated to teach, which takes a lot of time and training.
2. First responders are educated to protect and neutralize threats, which takes a lot of time and training.
3. Presuming teachers can be trained to be first responders in addition to being teachers is as absurd as supposing we can train first responders to be teachers (in a completely new discipline).
4. Since we would not expect a person trained as a first responder to be able to teach, say philosophy, after 10 weeks of training (this is one suggestion for training teachers how to use a weapon in an active shooter situation), we should not expect the same of a teacher regarding active shooter scenarios.
5. So, we should not arm teachers.

Part II (This will be an oversimplified example to give a sense of what is expected)
Argument I is best interpreted as inductive. Specifically, it fits the form of a statistical enumeration (here expand on how the stats lead to the conclusion offered above). This form of reasoning at best implies the strong likelihood that the conclusion is true if the premises are all true, but it does not necessitate the truth of the conclusion. It could also fit the form of a causal argument, also inductive, as it argues that there is a causal connection between weapons and accidents….

The alternative argument I is deductive, as it fits the form of a hypothetical syllogism, modus ponens in particular, and IF the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true–it i guaranteed by the premises.

Argument II is inductive, specifically a form of argument by analogy where the two situations of training teachers to do something totally new and training first responders to learn something totally new are compared and a conclusion is drawn on the basis of that comparison (we can add more to further strengthen the case). Since it is a causal argument, the conclusion might still be false, even if everything in the premises are true–so, inductive.

Part III–Evaluation of the arguments.(this will also be oversimplified for the example)
Argument I is a strong and cogent argument. It is strong, because if the premises are all true, the conclusion is very likely true. It is cogent, because the premises are all true. (here is where you would expand on the statistical analysis. Because there is a lot of potential data here, it is possible you could argue this case is a strong argument, but uncogent as the premises are in fact false–you would need to demonstrate why).

Argument I Alternate is valid, because if the premises are all true, the conclusion has to be as well, as it is a form of modus ponens. It is sound because all the premises are true (or it is unsound as one or more of the premises are false (here you would expand on why for each.)

Do the same for Argument II–it is a strong argument by analogy because if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely, and it is cogent (or uncogent) because the claims are all true…

Part IV of the rubric is for me to evaluate your spelling, grammar, etc.

Paper Grading Rubric (copy and paste to end of paper)

1. Your Representation of Cheney’s argument from ordinary language into Standard Logical Format: apply logical virtues of charity and faithfulness; explicitly state implied premises; complete sentences with only the logically relevant language included. You may represent this as one extended argument or as multiple arguments (the latter will likely be easier to formulate and clearly evaluate). (18 points)

2. Recognition of the elements of his argument: is your interpretation of Cheney’s argument intended to be deductive or inductive? Be able to explain why. What kind of deductive or inductive argument is it? A syllogism (what kind?), argument from definition, prediction, analogy, generalization, argument from authority, etc. and explain why it fits one of those argument types. (34 points)

3. Application of the standards for evaluating the quality of an argument: If Cheney’s argument is deductive is it valid, sound and why/why not; if inductive is it strong, cogent, and why/why not. Are the premises ambiguous or vague? Contain poorly defined terms? Are they true, why or why not? (38 points)

4. Syntactical quality (of your evaluation, not Cheney’s argument): Well-organized, flows well, grammar/spelling correct, citations correct, etc. (10 points)

The interview:

CHUCK TODD:

Good morning. Some late news, last night this Senate approved a $1.1 trillion spending bill. It will fund the government through next September. Bottom line, no government shutdown this year or perhaps next as well. But let’s get to our big story, the Senate report on what some call torture, what others call enhanced interrogation techniques.

The report put together by Senate Democrats on the intelligence committee. It’s a detailed and, in some cases, shocking indictment of the methods used to interrogate detainees. There’s no shortage of critics of what C.I.A. did. And there’s has been no more forceful defender of the tactics than our first guest, former Vice President Dick Cheney. So let’s get right to it. Vice President Cheney, welcome back to Meet the Press.

DICK CHENEY:

Morning, Chuck. It’s good to be back.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, let me start with quoting you. You said earlier this week, “Torture was something that was very carefully avoided.” It implies that you have a definition of what torture is. What is it?

DICK CHENEY:

Well, torture, to me, Chuck, is an American citizen on a cell phone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. There’s this notion that somehow there’s moral equivalence between what the terrorists and what we do. And that’s absolutely not true. We were very careful to stop short of torture. The Senate has seen fit to label their report torture. But we worked hard to stay short of that definition.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, what is that definition?

DICK CHENEY:

Definitions, and one that was provided by the Office of Legal Counsel, we went specifically to them because we did not want to cross that line into where we violating some international agreement that we’d signed up to. They specifically authorized and okayed, for example, exactly what we did. All of the techniques that were authorized by the president were, in effect, blessed by the Justice Department opinion that we could go forward with those without, in fact, committing torture.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me go through some of those techniques that were used, Majid Khan, was subjected to involuntary rectal feeding and rectal hydration. It included two bottles of Ensure, later in the same day Majid Khan’s lunch tray consisting of hummus, pasta, sauce, nuts and raisins was pureed and rectally infused.

DICK CHENEY:

That wasn’t–

CHUCK TODD:

Does that meet the definition of torture?

DICK CHENEY:

–that does not meet the definition of what was used in the program as–

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:

I understand. But does that meet the definition of torture in your mind?

DICK CHENEY:

–in my mind, I’ve told you what meets the definition of torture. It’s what 19 guys armed with airline tickets and box cutters did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11. What was done here apparently certainly was not one of the techniques that was approved. I believe it was done for medical reasons.

CHUCK TODD:

I mean, medical community has said there is no medical–

(OVERTALK)

DICK CHENEY:

If you go and look, for example, at Jose Rodriguez book, and he was the guy running the program, he’s got a very clear description of how, in fact, the program operated. With respect to that I think the agency has answered it and its response to the committee report and I–

CHUCK TODD:

–but you acknowledge this was over and above.

DICK CHENEY:

–that was not something that was done as part of the interrogation program.

CHUCK TODD:

But you won’t call it torture.

DICK CHENEY:

It wasn’t torture in terms of it wasn’t part of the program.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you this, we’ve got Riyadh al-Najjar. He had handcuffing on one or both of his wrists to an overhead bar, would not allow him to lower his arms. Twenty-two hours each day for two consecutive days in order to break his resistance. Al-Najjar was also wearing a diaper and had no access to toilet facility. Was that acknowledged? Was that part of the program that you approved?

DICK CHENEY:

I can’t tell from that specific whether it was or not.

CHUCK TODD:

And then–

DICK CHENEY:

I know we had–

CHUCK TODD:

–page 53 of the report.

DICK CHENEY:

–the report is seriously flawed. They didn’t talk to anybody who knew anything about the program. They didn’t talk to anybody within the program. The best guide for what in fact happened is the one that’s the report that was produced by the three C.I.A. directors and deputy directors of the C.I.A. when this program was undertaken.

And, in fact, it lays out in very clear terms what we did and how we did it. And with respect to trying to define that as torture I come back to the proposition torture was what the Al Qaeda terrorists did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11. There’s no comparison between that and what we did with inspect-enhanced interrogation.

CHUCK TODD:

I guess–

DICK CHENEY:

So not true.

CHUCK TODD:

–but some of these tactics went above and beyond what was improved.

DICK CHENEY:

But–

CHUCK TODD:

I mean, here’s another one. Let me read you another one here. With Abu Zubaydah, over a 20-day period, aggressive interrogations. Spent a total of 266 hours, 11 days, two hours, in a large coffin-sized confinement box, 29 hours in a small confinement box, width of 21 inches, depth of 2.5 feet, height of 2.5 feet. That’s on page 42.

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:

Is that going to meet the standard–

DICK CHENEY:

I think that was–

CHUCK TODD:

–of the definition of torture?

DICK CHENEY:

–I think that was, in fact, one of the approved techniques. In terms of torture I guess what I do, I was struck, for example, by the statements by Bud Day and Leo Thorsness and Admiral Denton. These are three folks who were captured by the North Vietnamese, held for a year, subject to extreme torture. And all of whom said that waterboarding was not torture.

Now you can look for various definitions. We did what was, in fact, required to make certain that going forward we were not violating the law. And the law, as interpreted by the justice department, the Office of Legal Counsel was very clear. And the techniques that we did, in fact, use that the president authorized that produced results, that gave us the information we needed to be able to safeguard the nation against further attacks and to be able to track those guilty for 9/11 did, in fact, work. Now the Senate committee partisan operation, no Republicans involved, no interviews of anybody involved itself–

CHUCK TODD:

It’s all C.I.A. documentation–

DICK CHENEY:

It’s, Chuck–

CHUCK TODD:

–in here. It is all C.I.A. documentation.

DICK CHENEY:

–Chuck, if you look at it and you look at what the people running the agency said and what Jose Rodriguez said who ran the program, he’s a good man, that, as I said the other day, I won’t use the word on your show. It may be family, it’s a crock. It’s not true. And it’s not–

CHUCK TODD:

Have you read more of the report since?

DICK CHENEY:

–I’ve read parts of it. The whole report hasn’t even been released.

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:

Right, all you’ve gotten is the 500 page.

DICK CHENEY:

Yeah, all you’ve got–

CHUCK TODD:

This is the executive summary.

DICK CHENEY:

–is the summary. Go read what the directors of the agency said about the report. They were extremely critical of it as were the Republicans who served on the committee. It’s a flawed report. It didn’t begin to approach what’s required by way of responsive oversight.

CHUCK TODD:

Does it plant any seed of doubt of you in though?

DICK CHENEY:

No.

CHUCK TODD:

No seed of doubt at all? All this–

DICK CHENEY:

Absolutely not.

CHUCK TODD:

–all of this information in here, no seed of doubt that whether this worked or not.

DICK CHENEY:

It worked. It absolutely did work.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you, what do you say to Gul Rahman, what do you say to Sulaiman Abdula, what do you say to Khalid al-Masri? All three of these folks were detained, they had these interrogation techniques used on them. They eventually were found to be innocent. They were released, no apologies, nothing. What do we owe them?

DICK CHENEY:

Well–

CHUCK TODD:

I mean, let me go to Gul Rahman. He was chained to the wall of his cell, doused with water, froze to death in C.I.A. custody. And it turned out it was a case of mistaken identity.

DICK CHENEY:

–right. But the problem I had is with the folks that we did release that end up back on the battlefield. Of the 600 and some people who were released out of Guantanamo, 30% roughly ended up back on the battlefield. Today we’re very concerned about ISIS. Terrible new terrorist organization.

It is headed by named Baghdadi. Baghdadi was in the custody of the U.S. military in Iraq in Camp Bucca. He was let go and now he’s out leading the terror attack against the United States. I’m more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent.

CHUCK TODD:

25% of the detainees though, 25% turned out to be innocent. They were released.

DICK CHENEY:

Where are you going to draw the line, Chuck? How are–

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I’m asking you.

DICK CHENEY:

–you going to know?

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:

Is that too high? You’re okay with that margin for error?

DICK CHENEY:

I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. And our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States. I was prepared and we did. We got authorizing from the president and authorization from the Justice Department to go forward with the program. It worked. It worked now for 13 years.

We’ve avoided another mass casualty attack against the United States. And we did capture Bin Laden. We did capture an awful lot of the senior guys at Al Qaeda who were responsible for that attack on 9/11. I’d do it again in a minute.

CHUCK TODD:

When you say waterboarding is not torture, then why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers in World War II for waterboarding?

(OVERTALK)

DICK CHENEY:

For a lot of stuff. Not for waterboarding. They did an awful lot of other stuff to draw some kind of moral equivalent between waterboarding judged by our Justice Department not to be torture and what the Japanese did with the Bataan Death March and the slaughter of thousands of Americans, with the rape of Nanking and all of the other crimes they committed, that’s an outrage. It’s a really cheap shot, Chuck, to even try to draw a parallel between the Japanese who were prosecuted for war crimes after World War II and what we did with waterboarding three individuals–

CHUCK TODD:

I understand.

DICK CHENEY:

–all of whom were guilty and participated in the 9/11 attacks.

CHUCK TODD:

Is there a reason these interrogations didn’t happen on U.S. soil? Was there concern that maybe these folks would get legal protections–

DICK CHENEY:

Well–

CHUCK TODD:

–from the United States and that’s why it was done at black sites?

DICK CHENEY:

–we didn’t read them their Miranda rights either. These are not American citizens. They are unlawful combatants. They are terrorists. They are people who have committed unlawful acts of war against the American people. And we put them in places where we could proceed with the interrogation program and find out what they knew so we could protect the country against further attack. And it worked.

CHUCK TODD:

Let me ask you to respond to John McCain and David Petraeus. General Petraeus said this in 2007 to his troops about these interrogation techniques, “Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong.” And of course here’s what Senator McCain said earlier this week.

JOHN MCCAIN (ON TAPE):

I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies. Our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights which are protected by international conventions, the United States not only joined but for the most part authored.

CHUCK TODD:

Your reaction?

DICK CHENEY:

My reaction is the same as Leo Thorsness. He was on the air this week. Captured pilot shot down over Vietnam, held in captivity for many years, subjected to torture who this week said, “Waterboarding is not torture.” He also holds the medal of honor as did Bud Day who was also captured and tortured and subsequently made it clear that he did not believe waterboarding was torture.

CHUCK TODD:

So if an American citizen is waterboarded by ISIS are we going to try to prosecute for war crimes?

DICK CHENEY:

He’s not likely to be waterboarded, he’s likely to have his head cut off. It’s not a close call.

CHUCK TODD:

If another country captures a U.S. soldier, the Iranian regime, water boards–

DICK CHENEY:

Chuck, he–

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:

–is that going to be an accepted–

DICK CHENEY:

–you’re trying to come up now with hypothetical situations. Waterboarding, the way we did it, was, in fact, not torture. Now when you’re dealing with terrorists, the likes of Al Qaeda or the ISIS, I haven’t seen them water board anybody. What they did is cut their heads off. What they did to 3,000 Americans on 9/11, that was brutal, bloody murder. It absolutely can’t be compared with what we did with respect to our enhanced interrogation program.

CHUCK TODD:

Now there is an implication here that you, yourself, were misled by the C.I.A. In particular, it has to do with Jose Padilla. A memo that was prepared for you by the C.I.A. said, “Use of DOJ authorized enhanced interrogation techniques as part of the comprehensive interrogation program has enabled us to disrupt terrorists’ plots. Dirty bomb plot, Operative Jose Padilla, and Binyam Mohamed plan to build and detonate a dirty bomb in the Washington D.C. area.

Plot was disrupted the source with Abu Zubaydah. In this same report, two pages later this is what the Senate Democrats found, “A review of C.I.A. cables and other C.I.A. records found that the use of the C.I.A.’s enhanced interrogation technique played no role in the identification of Jose Padilla or the thwarting of the dirty bomb or the tall buildings plot.” Do you feel as if they were telling you what you wanted to hear?

DICK CHENEY:

No, I think–

CHUCK TODD:

What’s the implication here?

DICK CHENEY:

–well, the implication is just wrong. And, again, the C.I.A. directors make it very clear that they got it very wrong time after time after time. The notion that we were not notified at the White House about what was going on is not true.

I sat through a lengthy session in ’04 with the inspector general of the C.I.A. as he reviewed the state of the program at that time. The suggestion, for example, that the president didn’t approve it, wrong. That’s a lie, that’s not true. We were, in fact–

CHUCK TODD:

How was he briefed? How was the president briefed?

DICK CHENEY:

–he was briefed–

CHUCK TODD:

By C.I.A. or by you or by–

DICK CHENEY:

–I was heavily involved as was especially the National Security Council, Condi. The president writes about it in his own book.

CHUCK TODD:

–so you were directly–

DICK CHENEY:

Wrote it in his book.

CHUCK TODD:

–right, well, three pages in his book he talks about it. But you were briefed directly, he was briefed indirectly most of the time. Is that fair to say?

DICK CHENEY:

That’s not fair to say. What happened was he and I met every single morning with the director of the C.I.A., with the National Security advisors six days a week and reviewed everything basically in the intelligence arena. That’s where we got most of our information, that and the written PDB.

There would be special meetings from time to time on various subjects that he would be directly involved in. This man knew what we were doing. He authorized it, he approved it. A statement by the Senate Democrats for partisan purposes that the president didn’t know what was going on is just a flat out lie.

CHUCK TODD:

But back to–

DICK CHENEY:

It’s a cheap shot piece of political business that was not bipartisan nor was it involved any discussion of the people involved in the program.

CHUCK TODD:

You have–

DICK CHENEY:

Why would you even give that credence?

CHUCK TODD:

–well, let me ask you this, why do you not have some doubt in the C.I.A.? This is the same intelligence community that didn’t get it right on WMDs in Iraq. Why are you so confident that they’re telling you the truth in these memos?

DICK CHENEY:

Well, because I know the people involved because I’ve worked– five out of the six former directors and deputy directors are men I’ve known for years and trust intimately with the difficult problems they’d dealt with. Jose Rodriguez is one of the outstanding officers in the agency.

I know what they were asked to do and I know what they did. And I’m perfectly comfortable that they deserve our praise, they deserve to be decorated. They don’t deserve to be harassed. Can you imagine what it’s going to be like if you were out there now as an officer in the agency and you were undertaking a complicated, difficult, dangerous task and you had the view that ten years from now even though the president approved it, even though the Justice Department signed off on it, some politician on Capitol Hill is going to come back and want a piece of your fanny.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, it–

DICK CHENEY:

That’s an outrageous proposition that we’re going through here that it’s even being discussed.

CHUCK TODD:

Well, it’s interesting you bring that up because here’s a United Nations, this is Ben Emerson, special envoy in human rights and counterterrorism. And he wants a criminal probe here. This is what he said, “It’s now time to take action. Individuals responsible,” what he calls a, “Criminal conspiracy revealed in the report must be brought to justice. Must criminal penalties.” And then he ends with, “U.S. legally is obliged to bring those responsible to justice.” I know how you feel on this. You think the president’s should issue a blanket–

(OVERTALK)

DICK CHENEY:

I have little respect for the United Nations or for this individual who doesn’t hear a clue and had absolutely no responsibility for safeguarding this nation and going after the bastards that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you think the president should issue a blanket pardon to C.I.A. agents involved here?

DICK CHENEY:

There’s no pardon needed. No crime was committed.

CHUCK TODD:

But just to–

DICK CHENEY:

No crime.

CHUCK TODD:

–make sure?

DICK CHENEY:

Who wants to sanction or satisfy some executive at the United Nations who doesn’t have any say or responsibility on a claim that some kind of pardon is required, Chuck? This is, again, I come back to the proposition. One of the things I’m really worried about is what this is doing long-term.

We’re still at war. The terrorists that are out there today is as bad as it was on 9/11. We’ve got ISIS talking about attacking the United States, having created a caliphate. We’re in a situation at least as bad as we had on 9/11 when after the attack we had word that Al Qaeda was trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

Now we’re sitting here today. We are castigating the C.I.A. for doing what the president ordered them to do and the Justice Department said was legal. We’re doing enormous damage to our relationship overseas with our friends and allies who’ve supported us and worked with us. We’re making it very, very difficult to be able to go recruit foreign agents to work with us because they’re likely to be hung out to dry by politicians on Capitol Hill who’ve got some kind of political axe to grind.

We’re in big trouble partly because of the irresponsible content, is the way I would describe it, with respect to this act. And if the Senate will go forward, the Senate Democrats would go forward, not with a bipartisan approach, not with an approach that takes into account the views of the people who were involved, goes forward for some political reason, trashing a very, very good program that worked, that saved lives, that kept us from another attack.

CHUCK TODD:

All right, let me ask you a couple of quick questions. I want to play for you an interesting clip of you 20 years ago about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Take a look.

DICK CHENEY (ON TAPE):

That’s a very volatile part of the world. And if you take down the central government in Iraq you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of Eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over for eight years. In the north you’ve got the Kurds. And the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It’s a quagmire if you go that far.

CHUCK TODD:

By the way, you look good there. Didn’t look like much–

DICK CHENEY:

How old were you—

CHUCK TODD:

–didn’t look like 20 years.

DICK CHENEY:

–twenty years ago?

CHUCK TODD:

What was I? I think I was 22 at the time. Let me ask you this, you could arguably, somebody hearing that today says, “Boy, that’s what Iraq looks like today.” Right now it looks like it might split up. It looks like it’s ungovernable. It looks like pieces of Syria and pieces of Iraq are, you know, I mean, everything you described is happening today.

DICK CHENEY:

So what’s your question?

CHUCK TODD:

Well, I guess I ask you, do you regret pushing Saddam Hussein out, do you regret the Iraq–

(OVERTALK)

DICK CHENEY:

No, a lot has happened. A lot has happened between that time, 9/11, for example, happened. We got to the point where we were very concerned about the possible linkage between terrorists on the one hand and weapons of mass destruction on the other. Saddam Hussein had previously had twice nuclear programs going. He produced and used weapons of mass destruction. And he had a ten-year relationship with Al Qaeda. All of things came into play.

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:

By the way, some of the Al Qaeda stuff is questioned in here.

DICK CHENEY:

When it was time to get into the business of deciding the importance to go after Iraq, we did the right thing. I believe the it was, in fact, the right action then and I believe it now. –

https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20141214_190000_Meet_the_Press/start/540/end/600 (Links to an external site.)

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Dec. 14, 2014.

Homework Sharks
Order NOW For A 10% Discount!
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -

Our Advantages

Plagiarism Free Papers

All our papers are original and written from scratch. We will email you a plagiarism report alongside your completed paper once done.

Free Revisions

All papers are submitted ahead of time. We do this to allow you time to point out any area you would need revision on, and help you for free.

Title-page

A title page preceeds all your paper content. Here, you put all your personal information and this we give out for free.

Bibliography

Without a reference/bibliography page, any academic paper is incomplete and doesnt qualify for grading. We also offer this for free.

Originality & Security

At Homework Sharks, we take confidentiality seriously and all your personal information is stored safely and do not share it with third parties for any reasons whatsoever. Our work is original and we send plagiarism reports alongside every paper.

24/7 Customer Support

Our agents are online 24/7. Feel free to contact us through email or talk to our live agents.

Try it now!

Calculate the price of your order

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
$0.00

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.

Our Services

We work around the clock to see best customer experience.

Pricing

Flexible Pricing

Our prces are pocket friendly and you can do partial payments. When that is not enough, we have a free enquiry service.

Communication

Admission help & Client-Writer Contact

When you need to elaborate something further to your writer, we provide that button.

Deadlines

Paper Submission

We take deadlines seriously and our papers are submitted ahead of time. We are happy to assist you in case of any adjustments needed.

Reviews

Customer Feedback

Your feedback, good or bad is of great concern to us and we take it very seriously. We are, therefore, constantly adjusting our policies to ensure best customer/writer experience.

× Contact Live Agents
Verified by MonsterInsights