Cheny's response includes some good points and some bad points. His perspective that the "enhanced" interrogations saved lives seems earnest, and its not his fault that he can't prove it.

However, he delves headlong into the sort of political extremism that has defined the past few years while simultaneously complaining about the lack of national unity. It becomes quite clear that Mr. Cheney has absolutely no respect for the opinions of people who disagree with him and has not seriously considered the possibility that he might be in the wrong. There are lots of passages I considered quoting here but I decided that these two are the clearest:

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the president is on the path of sensible compromise.

But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half-exposed.

He is making the argument that partisan absolutism is a necessary ingredient in the war on terror and if the people who don't agree with him are ever listened to on any point the consequence is that people will die.

After making such a sweeping generalization he has the audacity to also complain about the lack of national unity:

When they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along.

Instead, the terrorists see just what they were hoping for: our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity.

To quote Cheney - "Its another version of that same old refrain from the" right - that people who disagree with their policies have no right to an opinion and they should shut the fuck up because their very expression of their views hurts this country.

Thats a bit much from someone who is clearly wrong on several points, including his insistence on repeating a legal argument which was totally discredited within weeks of its original announcement:

We did not invent that authority. It's drawn from Article II of the Constitution, and it was given specificity by Congress after 9/11 in a joint resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" to protect the American people.