Kamala Harris Praises Chickenhawk and Warmonger Dick Cheney

Below is a video of Kamala Harris praising Dick Cheney, the former vice president who played a vital role in lying our nation into war. My question: is Harris signifying her support for Cheney-like policies of war?  Will she regard herself as beholden to the Cheneys if she is elected?  If she is accepting their support now, will she accept their advice in the future? 

As anyone older than forty knows, Dick Cheney visited CIA headquarters  before the Iraq War began and pressured its officials into coming up with "intelligence" that supported that war. 

Consider this paragraph from a paper posted to the National Security Archive

There were several avenues by which the Bush administration made its preferences clear. Vice President Richard Cheney questioned his CIA briefers aggressively, pressing them to the wall when he saw intelligence from other agencies that portrayed a more somber picture than that in CIA’s reporting.

He sent briefers back for more information, including in instances when they checked with headquarters and returned with the same word. Cheney was especially acerbic on CIA’s rejection of claims that one of the 9/11 terrorists had met with Iraqi intelligence officers in Prague.[Note: The claim that 9/11 terrorists met with Saddam Hussein has been conclusively debunked. That knowledge was available to Bush administration members like Cheney at the time. Such a claim defies common sense as well. Saddam Hussein was secular in his politics and fanatical Muslims would be the last people he would ally himself with.] On a number of occasions, Cheney sent his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, to CIA headquarters to follow up on his concerns. Mr. Cheney went there himself, not just once but on almost a dozen occasions. The practice encouraged the CIA to censor itself, driven, as Pillar put it, by “the desire to avoid the unpleasantness of putting unwelcome assessments on the desks of policymakers.” 

The concluding paragraph from the same source reads as follows:

The preparation of white papers on both the United States and British sides also needs to be taken into account. That Bush and Blair each turned to their intelligence agencies for the papers is significant—they were evoking the imprimatur of secret intelligence to justify policy preferences. Both papers had the function of justification, not analysis, and neither government waited until it had compiled all the evidence before demanding these products. Neither government asked for intelligence estimates, fashioned in secret, in order to inform policy on Iraq. Instead, both Bush and Blair did want their intelligence agencies to carry out avowed political agendas. And the timing of the white paper drafts—now established as being in the summer of 2002, before there ever was a UN debate or a Security Council resolution—clearly indicates their true function. The accumulating weight of evidence currently supports the interpretation Scott McClellan gives, not that supplied by apologists for the Iraq war. 

[While in general I regret Kamala Harris's loss in the election, I am relieved that the Cheneys will not have political influence in the Trump administration.]