Lynne Cheney Falsely Attacks PBS Documentary As ‘One-Sided,’ ‘Predictable,’ And ‘A Hit Job’
Lynne Cheney Falsely Attacks PBS Documentary As ‘One-Sided,’ ‘Predictable,’ And ‘A Hit Job’
During her appearance on MSNBC today, Lynne Cheney attempted to discredit Cheney’s Law, the new Frontline documentary exploring her husband’s “secretive, and often bitter battle to expand the power of the presidency,” calling it “predictable,” “one-sided” and “a hit job.” Cheney charged that the film, which premieres tonight, has a “complete and total lack of objectivity”:
A piece like this, which is the second in a series. The complete and total lack of objectivity in this piece. The fact that no long form documentary is being prepared, or will ever be prepared that would show it from the other point of view. This is a one-sided, it’s a, what do you call it, a hit job.
Watch it:
While Cheney is complaining about Frontline’s supposed “one-sided” report, she neglects to mention that neither Vice President Cheney nor his Chief of Staff David Addington “agreed to be interviewed” for the documentary. Their point of view is expressed, however, by former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo, who had an integral hand in formulating the legal basis for Cheney’s policies.
Additionally, Ms. Cheney is demonstrating an exceptionally weak memory when she claims “no long form documentary…will ever be prepared that would show it from the other point of view,” considering that just this past weekend Fox News aired an hour-long hagiography titled “Dick Cheney: No Retreat.”
Who gave Cheney’s “point of view” to Fox? Dick Cheney.
UPDATE: Watch the preview of Cheney’s Law:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Of course, because when one thinks of irresponsible TV programming, one thinks of TMZ, Jerry Springer, and PBS.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:25 pm“Go ahead Lynne Lucifer refute the facts.”
[crickets]
“feel free to prove it is a hit job and not factual.”
[crickets]
October 16th, 2007 at 5:27 pmWhat can you expect from the Darth’s wife who is lavishing herself in the riches of the war profiteering machine??
October 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pmEither this photo is exceptionally horrible or Lynne needs to fire her plastic surgeon. Her “eyejob” looks ridiculous.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:29 pmI think that Lynne Cheney accepts the fact that anything that is produced and shown on Fox News doesn’t really qualify as anything other than propaganda.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pmShe calls it a “hit job”/ I call it an “eye job”.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pmgo fu*k yourself mrs cheney
October 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pmLynne: “This is a one-sided, it’s a, what do you call it, a hit job” – – This is a poor attempt at feigning righteous indignaition and “stumbling” over an obviously rehearsed idiom.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:30 pmSadly, Lynne Cheney is going up against a biggie when it comes to responsible reporting on this one…..a proposition which only makes her look more out of touch with reality, more in collusion with evil, and more of a matronly moron.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pmLynne Cheney vs. PBS is a “no brainer”.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pmSomeone needs to ask Ms. Lynne is her conscience bothers her that our soldiers are shedding their blood for her profits and her lavish lifestyle from Haliburton?? Oh, I forgot…Cheney resigned as CEO before he took office – or did he?? NOT!
October 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pmLynne Cheney vs. PBS is a “no brainerâ€.
Comment by Veritas — October 16, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Lynne Cheney is a “no brainerâ€.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pmYou know these men are desperate when they send out their women as a last ditch effort. Lynne prostituting herself against the icon of “authentic, truthful reporting (aka PBS)” is like Lynne disputing the bible.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:33 pmDave C: That’s obvious, too! hahaha! Moron is more in keeping with what I’d had in mind. A moron whoring for her crim hubby.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:34 pmTell us Lynne do you find more blood on your Jacksons or Franklin’s?
Did Halliburton pay for your pumps or the pearls?
How much land do you now own in Paraguay?
October 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pmI’m surmising that this is “wishful thinking” on the part of Mrs. Darth. She wishes that all of this truth coming out in the documentary would not be true. Lynne is a card-carrying member of the twisted fascist thinktank, PNAC, so you know she’s deluded to begin with.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pmYou know the cheneys are stealing Haliburton money through the back door.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:36 pmLynn says – “TRUTH BURNS, make it stop, it is like sunlight, it BURNS…I’m melting, melting….arrggg…I will get you and your little dog too.”
Her man is a War Criminal and War Profiteer, what more do we need to say?
Buck Fush
October 16th, 2007 at 5:40 pmSister Lynn should use the race card for Brother Dick.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pmThe truth hurts and putting Senator Craig on the same night might help the public from watching PBS. Look if Americans had a choice between watching Paris go to jail, Britney hit a car or Lindsey drunk and learning the truth about how the US Government has be hijacked by Dick Cheney who do you think Americans would want to see? Our troops have been begging the American people to stand up and help them come home and injured soldiers have begged for medical help but Americans are only interested in Orlando Blooms car accident, Chris Matthews lies, Rush attacks and Craig’s men’s room scenes. Our economy is out of control, millions are losing their homes, food prices sky high, gas prices way up and millions losing their jobs but still that’s not really important to Americans only who will win Dancing with the Stars.
Gee, I wonder how Lynn Cheney will react to a PBS documentary about her husband. (One-sided and predictable).
This is the same person who said that Carter is just trying to sell more books when he criticizes the Prez, I mean VP, while she’s on a book promotion tour.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pmNo, Mrs. Cheney, what your husband has done to our country is a, what do you call it, a hit job, if you will.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:41 pmGosh, those people at PBS are so mean to poor Dick!! Why, he’s a sweet old pussycat – wouldn’t hurt a fly!!
Blech.
Yeah, like we’re going to buy THAT load o’crap.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pmPoor little baby…. a little bit of truth finally makes it onto the airways . . . and you can’t take it.
What about the pain and distress AND the lives of people affected by his decisions and actions!!!???
October 16th, 2007 at 5:49 pm“predictable”? Of course! At this point Mr. Cheney’s pattern of behavior is highly predictable because of its consistency.
“one-sided”? Of course! Mr. Cheney may physically live in a three-dimensional world but his pursuits have been singular efforts at seizing power and control.
“hit job”? Oh, I’d like to give one hit for everytime he has referred to me as “unpatriotic” because I don’t agree with his vision of America. This is “hit job” phrase is one more example of the criminal neocon’s projecting their unacceptable traits onto their opponents.
Short answer? Go f&%# yourself, or at least Mr. Cheney so he’ll stay away from any political activity and screw this country more.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:50 pmAnd MSNBC Nora O’Donnel was talking to Mrs. Cheney as if she was her daughter in law, instead of being a journalist.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:50 pmNora let Lynne do the talking..and at the end the viewer get a glimpse of Lynne’s new book to buy.
Ya know.
She was much better at writing porn for republicon women. she don’t do the spin thing too well.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:06 pmLynn Cheney was perfectly right when she said no long form documentary had been done.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:15 pmNotice they key word ‘documentary.’
hit job?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:20 pmif only it was true.
i’d nominate PBS for the nobel peace prize.
What a joke.
On us.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:21 pmMayhaps she’d be interested faintly in the reasons why millions of people hate her fascista spouse>?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:22 pmUber executive serves to break down the balance of powers of the constitution set for by the framers, There is no real rational reason to abrogate those powers and those that try to do so try to create something democracy was not meant to be.
Karl Rove suggested, and apparently worked for a one party system? Which would, by example of today, be some type of authoritarian system, what would that have been called?
And if we have a unitary executive, that Dick seems to work for, that would mean we wouldn’t need a Vice President.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:27 pmthat would mean we wouldn’t need a Vice President.
Right, so kick W to the curb.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pmAs a former homecoming queen, Lynn Cheney, by her remarks, proves that beauty is only skin deep. Perhaps Queen of Mean would be a more apt description of the wife of the vice president.
October 16th, 2007 at 6:41 pmAnd MSNBC Nora O’Donnel was talking to Mrs. Cheney as if she was her daughter in law, instead of being a journalist.
Nora let Lynne do the talking..and at the end the viewer get a glimpse of Lynne’s new book to buy.
Comment by tarazan — October 16, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Noron O’Dumb#ss is a Ghoul-Aid guzzling Repugniscum TROLL!!
October 16th, 2007 at 6:50 pmI was reading the PBS article and the only argument for the uber-duper Prsesident is the fear of attack.
The WTC was attacked under Clinton in 1993, but we saw no ‘everything changed’ superman presidential powers. Clinton managed to capture many of the extremists behind the attack.
We had red lights, bells and whistles, PDB’s, warnings about students at high schools who couldnt fly, the hijackers entered the country legally, not thru a border tunnel, they lived in apartmensts, and were under investigation, but did not use the phone they did have in the apartment. Operation Able Danger, did know of several of the hijackers. A check from a Saudi Prince, was sent to the hijackers and we new of all of this without increased presidential powers.
The president does not operate the complex computers or know the innerworkings of the elaborate telephone systems. The only time he is notified that we need to investigate someome is when an agent, or some filemining program, or spy, brings it to the attention of the president. By giving the president these broad powers doe not give him superman abilities to stop terrorists attacks.
He was warned about airplanes into building and all this other stuff, Dictatorial legislation, would not have changed what occured that day on 9/11. The could have given him a purple crown with Fleischmans on it and King God, all powerful and all knowing and slipped the Lord of the Rings ring upon his finger.
So then, we have to assume our politicians know that no President, with political power, dash into a phone booth and exit with laser eyes and the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound and save the maiden tyed to the tressel by Snidely Whiplash, or jump into a flying egg with his loyal lion friend and defeat the giant hair by scaring it to death.
Aint gonna happen, This is about one political party wanting to dominate, indefinitely, over the other using tools that Nixon would just love instead of depending on some dumbass with a flashlight on a night mission.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:11 pmI would like to know just how she came across this information. That isn’t the usual stuff someone would look for. Could they have directed the Secret Service to do a background check on him and they went a little far?
October 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pmlynn cheney and the truth don’t get along at all.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:33 pm.
If the documentary is in fact a hit job, well–who more richly deserves to be the subject of a smear than Dick Cheney. But in his case, you can seem to be smearing him merely by uncovering the facts about his activities.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:38 pmHer makeup is just barely keeping the seething evil from showing through. Sex between the Cheney’s must be weird – what with all of the locked horns, split tongues, smoke, burning embers, and sulphur (not to mention the hoof marks on the ceiling).
October 16th, 2007 at 7:50 pmOh, that made me laugh, thank you Marcus Aurelius.
Buck Fush
October 16th, 2007 at 8:00 pmMy pleasure.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:02 pmLynne Cheney is right. This show will be “predictable.”
I predict that Dick will be exposed as more evil than any of us ever knew.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pmWhat else is new?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:46 pmThe candidates are doing all the talking points now that no one anywhere close to the wh has any cred.
The sewage machine has spilled in every direction to keep media busy with nonsense.
The giant swindle is going on right in front of us.
And don’t forget while we are all distracted deciding just how bad these guys have made it: the price of oil is at all time highs.This of course with the constant reasurance they will keep the rising price under control.
Yah.They got it going just as planned.
Why not take it all in the last year of insanity.
PBS Frontline !!
October 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pmNice that we have shown the light on this rat.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:04 pmI do not in any way support the Cheney’s. I honestly cannot stand the likes of them. However, she is married. It is MRS. Cheney, not MS. Cheney.
It is my understanding (and please, someone correct me if I’m wrong), that the term “MS. So-and-So” came about to separate women that were divorced or widowed from women that were unmarried or married.
Yuck, now that I read that backto myself, it’s pretty damn sad that they have to be separated in this manner.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:23 pmHaving said my previous comment, it’s gonna scare the crap out of my to watch this.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:26 pmA Bush loyalist complaining about being the victim of a “hit job”.
Now that’s rich!
If it’s such a egregious libel, Mrs. Cheney, feel free to sue. Oh wait, that would require you to show PBS got their facts wrong.
Never mind.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:32 pmFULL FRONTLINE PROGRAM IS
NOW ONLINE — as a series of
java-flash chapters — see link:
this is an astonishing piece of
video-journalism — it is also a
thoroughly-damning account of mr.
cheney’s thirty-year quest to
render the congress, and the courts
as secondary branches — behind the
executive branch as the primary
branch of government.
too bad the framers had an entirely
opposite idea — three co-equal branches.
do watch it.
it WILL send chills down your spine.
especially now that we know cheney
was pressuring qwest to surveil americans
without the benefit of any warrant at least
eight months PRIOR to 9/11 — per joseph
nacchio’s appellate filings, just unsealed, in denver. . .
p e a c e
October 16th, 2007 at 10:04 pmFrontline invited Cheney and all the other players to appear on the show. They declined. So don’t go byatching about how it’s one-sided, Lynny-poo. We’re not going to quit making documentaries about your husband just because he’s a paranoid, secretive liar.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:12 pmImpeach Cheney!
October 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pmYou know, after watching this tonight, I really do wonder why we don’t peaceably assemble in front of the Vice President’s residence to protest his abuse of the US Constitution and basic American principles of democracy. Just a few hundred thousand should send a message.
Cheney and Addington are authoritarians, the real Banana Republicans.
We the American people, through our Congress, should investigate, impeach, indict and delouse our government.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:19 pmWhat stands out, in my opinion, in Cheney’s Law is the way these republicans use minorities to do their dirty work for them.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:04 amJohn Yoo, Collin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez all have one thing in common: they either did their master’s bidding or they would simply not enjoy the benefits of power.
John Yoo came up with many legal opinions to justify abuse and torture; when the time came to be named head of the Office of Legal Affairs at the DOJ, he was passed over and left the administration. Collin Powell did his infamous routine at the UN and was eased out the State Department when he was no longer useful; Fredo Gonzalez, well, we all know about him.
In the Republican big tent, you are a minority at your own risk!
.
Lynn, Lynn, Lynn,
You shouldda stuck with girlz.
.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:30 amAfter watching the show I can say that it presented little in the way of major revelation, but did a fine job summing up a goodly part of what has gone horribly awry with this administration. It rightfully pegged Cheney as the monarchist (and monarch wannabe) that he is. It gave a bit too much credit to Addington’s “intelligence” where it seemed his talent and willingness for bullying may have been more the factor.
I thought it was actually quite fair handed, really. It gave Yoo all the chance in the world to defend what any reasonable human being can plainly see as treason. He came out looking like the same toady he was going in. He still seems to feel that it’s perfectly acceptable to dismantle the Constitution if and when there arises an inconvenient situation, and is sure that he and his ilk are the right ones to decide when that situation occurs.
The framers set out a fairly comprehensible document describing the foundation of our country. As far as “legalese” goes, it is a wonder of clarity. That there are people who can and will confuse, obscure and destroy it to further their own ends is appalling. These people can be called nothing but traitors. It falls clearly under the definition of the term, much as it pains me to say it. They even admit as much, drunk with power as they are. They need to be held accountable, and punished as the law provides, that it should not seem profitable for others of their sort to attempt the same behavior.
At one point in the show it said something to the effect that this administration, right after 9/11, decided that it would have to be the rule of men rather than the rule of law. Once again, there is but one word for that.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:23 amWhy are we seeing Lynne Cheney on the pundit circle so often these days?
Is she the only person the neocons can find who their focus groups say people will believe? Kinda scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren’t they?
COME ON AMERICA! She’s married to Dick Cheney! Is SHE going to tell you the truth?????????
This is a pretty vivid demonstration of just how much the media is “in the pocket” of the right wing when they go this far out of their way to publish a right-wing opinion. They know if they show any more of Bush, Cheney, Rice, McConnel, etc., the people will turn the channel, so they pick the mothballs out of Lynne’s hair and push her on stage. It’s television – we can’t smell the formaldehyde.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:59 amIt is my understanding (and please, someone correct me if I’m wrong), that the term “MS. So-and-So†came about to separate women that were divorced or widowed from women that were unmarried or married.
Comment by Jeannie See — October 16, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Do you not remember the 70’s? This was the decade when women decided they were human beings and not mere appendages of the men they were married to. Furthermore, many women resented the idea that they had to be tagged with a title indicating their marital status and men did not.
The term “Ms.” (pronounced Mizz) didn’t come about to designate a formerly married woman. It came about because in our society, men were known as “Mr.” whether they were married or not. Women wanted a marriage-neutral title, too — that they could use in business situations and other times when their marital status was irrelevant.
As a result, you will find “Ms.” used for all adult women — single women, married women, divorced women, and widowed women. And it’s especially used when the user has no idea what the marital status of the woman is.
In the case of Lynne Cheney, I would support the use of “Mrs.” though. She is obviously shilling for her husband and not herself, so Mrs. is appropriate. And not even “Mrs. Lynne Cheney”, but “Mrs. Dick Cheney.”
October 17th, 2007 at 8:52 amIn the case of Lynne Cheney, I would support the use of “Mrs.†though. She is obviously shilling for her husband and not herself, so Mrs. is appropriate. And not even “Mrs. Lynne Cheneyâ€, but “Mrs. Dick Cheney.â€
I’m for Mrs. Dick.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:45 amcan someone tell me the relevance of Lynne Cheney?
October 17th, 2007 at 2:45 pmWhen oh when are they going to stop trotting out this poor excuse for a human being to do their dirty work. Do they really think anyone on this planet takes anything this hideous woman says seriously? Ignore her. She’s pathetic.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:06 pmAs if Faux News is real.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:19 pm