instruction:
In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
question:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended the Bush administration's economic record, the invasion of Iraq and the treatment of suspected terrorists, warning that reversing its anti-terrorism policies endangers Americans. "We've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do," ex-Vice President Dick Cheney says Sunday about Iraq. In a wide-ranging interview with CNN's "State of the Union," Cheney said the harsh interrogations of suspects and the use of warrantless electronic surveillance were "absolutely essential" to get information to prevent more attacks like the 2001 suicide hijackings that targeted New York and Washington. "President Obama campaigned against it all across the country, and now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack," he said. Critics said the Bush administration's "alternative" interrogation techniques amounted to the torture of prisoners in American custody, while the administration's warrantless surveillance program violated federal laws enacted after the Watergate scandal. Since taking office in January, Obama has announced plans to close the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to halt the military trials of suspected terrorists there, and to make CIA officers follow the Army field manual's rules on interrogations. Cheney said the administration appears to be returning to the pre-2001 model of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, rather than a military problem. "When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they're doing, closing Guantanamo and so forth ... they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required, that concept of military threat that is essential if you're going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks," he said. But Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pennsylvania, said the Bush administration's policies undercut "what is actually the source of America's greatness -- our principles." "How can we say that keeping a man in a black hole forever -- perpetually in a black hole -- and saying, 'Let's torture when we decide to,' is what America stands for?" asked Sestak, a former admiral who led the Navy's anti-terrorism efforts. The Bush administration took office at the end of an economic boom and left in the middle of a deep recession, with a budget surplus in 2001 becoming a $1 trillion-plus deficit by 2009. But Cheney said he and Bush had to spend money to deal with the September 11, 2001 attacks, the resulting war in Afghanistan, the disaster of 2005's Hurricane Katrina, and the costly and unpopular war in Iraq, now nearly six years old. "All of these things required us to spend money that we had not originally planned to spend, or weren't originally part of the budget," Cheney said. "Stuff happens. And the administration has to be able to respond to that, and we did." Obama has begun to wind down the war in Iraq, which has cost more than 4,200 American lives and nearly $700 billion in direct costs. But Cheney said the United States has "accomplished nearly everything we set out to do" in Iraq, including establishing a democratic government in the Middle East. Cheney was one of the administration's leading advocates of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, pressing the Bush administration's argument that Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction and could provide those weapons to terrorists. None of those weapons were found after the invasion, but Cheney said, "We've eliminated that possibility." In 2005, Cheney said the raging insurgency against U.S. troops was in its "last throes." Nearly two years later, a commitment of more than 30,000 additional American troops and a widespread effort to pay former insurgents to turn against Islamic militants helped quell the worst of the violence. "I don't hear much talk about that, but the fact is, the violence level is down 90 percent," Cheney said. "The number of casualties [among] Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There's been elections, a constitution. They're about to have another presidential election here in the near future. We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal, and it is, in fact, what we set out to do." But Sestak said the administration was too slow to react to the problems it faced in Iraq and let the conflict overshadow the "whole fabric" of U.S. national security. "The cost of this war is something that I strongly believe has far, far hurt us," he said. "We're going to recover, because we're Americans. But Iraq was just one piece of our security, and this administration failed to realize that." Though considered one of the administration's most influential figures, Cheney said President Bush rebuffed his advice on at least two issues.  Watch Cheney tout Bush administration » . He said Bush left former Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby "sort of hanging in the wind" by refusing to issue Libby a pardon before leaving office. Libby was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal agents investigating the leak of a former CIA officer's identity. "I believe firmly that Scooter was unjustly accused and prosecuted and deserved a pardon, and the president disagreed with that," Cheney said. He would disclose no details of his efforts to lobby the president on Libby's behalf, saying they would be "best left to history." And Cheney said he argued against the administration's policy on North Korea, which tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. The Bush administration reached a still-incomplete disarmament deal with the isolated Stalinist state in 2007 and removed it from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism as part of the deal. "I had my say," Cheney told CNN. "I got my chance to voice my views and my objections. I didn't think the North Koreans were going to keep their end of the bargain in terms of what they agreed to, and they didn't." The Obama administration has nominated Christopher Hill, the State Department official who was the top U.S. negotiator with North Korea, to be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Cheney said Hill lacks the Middle East experience that his predecessors have, and "I did not support the work that Chris Hill did with respect to North Korea." "I think it's a choice that I wouldn't have made," he said.
answer:
NEW: Cheney: Harsh interrogations, warrantless eavesdropping "essential"
NEW: Former vice president says Bush rebuffed his advice on two big issues .
"An administration has to be able to respond to [crises] and we did," Cheney said .
Cheney cites costs of dealing with 9/11 attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq .


question:
(CNN) -- "An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 1964 . It's downright disgusting to listen to conservative and Republican lawmakers, presidential candidates, business owners and media commentators use such vitriol to describe the Occupy Wall Street protesters as hell-bent on destroying America. How in the world can anyone even form their lips to say such a thing when this very country was founded on the basis of dissent? Self-professed rodeo clown Glenn Beck castigates the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but he's always running off at the mouth about the Founding Fathers and how brilliant they were. Without dissent and protest, there is no United States of America! It's as if these folks never picked up a history book to understand how this nation was formed. The very notion of a United States of America started with someone saying, writing and screaming, "Enough is enough!" And when more and more of the early settlers became enraged at the heavy-handed actions of the British, that's when we were on our path to the American Revolution. Do any of these so-called strict constructionists even read the very U.S. Constitution they love to wave in the faces of their critics? Every American, no matter if you're young or old; rich or poor; red state or blue state; Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native American; has the freedom to assemble and freedom of speech, which is at the heart of these protests. In this same space, I praised the tea party for not sitting around and complaining. Instead, they organized and mobilized to affect the political discourse in the Republican Party and have definitely had their voices heard. I may disagree with a number of things the tea party advocates, but there is no way I would condemn them for doing it. As Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas said, "The right to revolt has sources deep in our history." It's increasingly clear that some Americans love to talk a good game about protests, yet hate it when someone who opposes their views decides to stand up and be heard. Remember all of those political voices championing the people of Iran taking to the streets to protest? How about Tunisia? Egypt? Libya? Bahrain? What would this world be without protest? We would have never seen freedom in Eastern Europe were it not without the people there, in the words of civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer, being "sick and tired of being sick and tired." Praise God that the children of South Africa, led by the African National Congress, didn't ignore the calls of history. If so, Nelson Mandela would be dying in jail and freedom would have never ended apartheid. This nation would not have been forced to make real the very principles cited in the Declaration of Independence, or treat every human being as an equal, were it not for the civil rights movement. Those brave men, women and children chose not to accept the status quo, and this nation and the world are much better off because they did. As a supporter of Occupy Wall Street, I understand fully the sentiment that is being expressed. The massive corporate greed that has devastated the wages of the common worker, and seen the pay of a bunch on Wall Street go through the stratosphere for literally making nothing tangible, has been immoral and obscene. Wall Street and their protectors in Washington -- Democrat and Republican -- say nothing is wrong with making a profit. That is absolutely true. But what is shameful and outlandish is to watch the American taxpayer save the jobs (and big bonuses) of these financial miscreants, only to see them jack up fees left and right. Without the American people they would have had to pack up their belongings and hit the pavement. Instead, they refuse to work with homeowners struggling to meet the big mortgage payments that Wall Street helped underwrite; then sell in exotic transactions that wrecked this nation's financial infrastructure. Conservatives call this an assault on capitalism. No, Occupy Wall Street is about trying to bring some decency and honesty back to an industry that used to have some. Instead, what we have today are literal financial pirates trying to take the largest booty they can find. They don't care about the long-term health of this country. It's all about the next quarterly earnings reports and their massive year-end bonuses. This fight that Occupy Wall Street is engaged in is nothing short of a battle for the soul of this nation. Are we going to continue to allow ourselves to be held hostage by the big banks? Will we continue to allow them to trample over us with their "too big to fail" attitude? No, no, and hell no. It's time to bring these Goliaths to their knees by any means necessary. That mean the young and righteous Davids must protest, march, sit-in, work the halls of Congress and state capitals nationwide, and make it clear that as long as Wall Street, its lobbyists and political protectors continue to mistreat the common man and woman, they are our mortal enemy. Now is not the time to dismiss the protesters as a bunch of lefty college students with no guidance, no substance and no mission. Instead of listening to politicians pimp the next generation, these folks are saying in the words of the founders of the nation's first black newspaper, Freedom's Journal: "We wish to plead our own cause; too long have others spoken for us." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.
answer:
Without dissent and protest, there is no United States, Roland S. Martin says .
Characterizing Occupy Wall Street protesters as anti-American is disgusting, he says .
Martin: It's not an assault on capitalism, but a call for decency in in the financial industry .


question:
After several months of airstrikes, the international coalition's operation against ISIS in Syria has failed to dismantle the group's structure of command and has pushed its militants further beyond the country's borders. Civilians and opposition rebel forces have been left frustrated by the coalition's narrow focus, lack of a clear agenda and apparent failure to take into consideration the dynamics of the wider Syrian conflict. Late last month, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said that without U.N. Security Council approval, the U.S. strikes lacked legitimacy. But in comments to media he said: "Anyway, if their aim is to strike against ISIS, it's OK." Does this statement mean that the Syrian government views the coalition strikes as beneficial to its hold on power? Does the old Arab proverb the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" apply to this case and to the reality on the ground? In the short term, the international coalition's counter-terrorism strategy may certainly be in the interests of the Assad regime. Military strikes are to some extent forcing ISIS fighters to retreat from territories under their control in northern and eastern Syria. Other opposition groups -- including the Free Syrian Army -- are unlikely to have the capability to take advantage of these strikes. The Syrian military is still superior when it comes to aerial force and may be best placed to retake ISIS territories. Although the Gulf states would like to see an anti-ISIS offensive that would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Syrian government, the U.S. and Western allies have made it clear that regime change is not an objective of this military campaign. Coalition strikes have not been targeting the Syrian government's military forces or infrastructure. Thus the Syrian government has found the U.S., Western allies, and Arab states on the side of its own allies Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran -- aiding Assad against one of his most powerful and influential threats. Ironically, the same nations that may have indirectly contributed to the creation of ISIS itself, are now investing their military capital into fighting it. So far, however, the balance of power has not shifted significantly either in favor of the government forces or rebel groups. ISIS has been pushed out of some territories, but is advancing in others. Although government forces have made slight advances in Aleppo, resource constraints have prevented the military from taking full advantage of the coalition strikes. Strategically, Assad needs to focus on holding the large cities already under government control. Civilian suffering . More fundamentally, the coalition's anti-ISIS campaign has deflected attention from the Syrian government and armed rebel group's atrocities against civilians. There are claims the Assad government has in fact ratcheted up its attacks in the shadow of the strikes. The opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights on Thursday reported that regime airstrikes had killed 221 civilians, "taking advantage of the international media focusing on ISIS and Ein al-Arab 'Kobani'." Syrian civilians might also question why the international community decided to intervene against ISIS after ignoring -- for several years -- the Syrian government's brutality in a conflict that has led to more than 190,000 deaths and more than 3,200,000 refugees. The offensive has not alleviated the humanitarian crisis facing the Syrian people and the strikes' unintended consequences -- civilian casualties -- are increasingly leading to a domestic outcry against such intervention. Tackling the disease . For some, the question is why the coalition does not address the fundamental roots of the war, tackling the disease itself rather than the symptoms. On a long term basis, the coalition strikes against ISIS in Syria will inevitably keep expanding, working to escalate the conflict. A strategic shift to target the Syrian government's military infrastructure is unlikely as many regional and international state actors have a stake in Syria. Coalition training may gradually improve some of the Syrian rebel groups' military capabilities and strategic planning but the current balance of power between the government forces and various rebel and armed groups will likely continue. Domestic, regional, international and non-state players will continue to pursue their own goals. Amid ongoing instability and competing interests, Syria's social and political environment will be ripe for further radicalization, militarization and ultimately further civilian suffering. In the end, both ISIS and Assad may be the beneficiaries of the foreign airstrikes, using them as a pretext to further advance their political interests. A narrow and short-term counter-terrorism strategy that fails to take into account the many layers of the wider Syrian conflict is unlikely to succeed.
answer:

Syria has said coalition strikes lack legitimacy but aim of striking ISIS is OK .
Majid Rafizadeh says in the short term, coalition strikes may help the Assad regime .
But he says the coalition strategy fails to take the wider conflict into account .
The conflict will continue to escalate and Syrian civilians will suffer, he says .