Cheney Worried That Iraq Withdrawal Will ‘Waste’ The Sacrifice By U.S. Troops
Cheney Worried That Iraq Withdrawal Will ‘Waste’ The Sacrifice By U.S. Troops
Tomorrow is the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq, a date Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is calling a “great victory.” But in a new interview with Washington Times radio, Vice President Cheney was still pushing the U.S. to stay in Iraq, saying that withdrawal would “waste” the sacrifice of U.S. troops:
Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times’ America’s Morning News radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.
“But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks.
“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“
Cheney said that he respects Odierno, who is concerned that there “is still a continuing problem.” Cheney was referencing Odierno’s comments from a CNN interview yesterday. However, Cheney left out the rest of the general’s comments, in which he said that he doesn’t see such “a breakdown in stability” likely to happen:
ODIERNO: Well, again, I think — I think it has to do with if we see a breakdown in stability in Iraq; if we see a consistent increase in violence; if we see that the Iraqi security forces aren’t able to respond; if we have some event that it caused some instability, then that would cause us to, maybe, after we’re asked by the government of Iraq, to help.
I don’t see that right now. I believe we’re on the right path. And I want to make sure you understand that. I believe we are still on the right path. I think security and stability is headed in the right direction as we move through 30 June.
Furthermore, in an interview with CBS yesterday, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill said that in “overall trends, you see that violence in this year, ‘09, are considerably less. … We think, we are certainly ready to make this move and most importantly we believe the Iraqi forces are ready to take over this mission.”
Cheney has long been fear-mongering on U.S. withdrawal, hoping to keep troops in Iraq as long as possible. In April 2008 he made the misleading claim that al Qaeda would “acquire control” of Iraq’s oil resources if the U.S. left, also compared withdrawal to “betrayal.”
- Comments
- 94
Republican party drops to Cheney-levels of unpopularity.
Republican party drops to Cheney-levels of unpopularity.
A NBC/WSJ poll released this week showed that Vice President Cheney now has a 26 percent approval rating, “up eight points from April.” However, Greg Sargent today points out that the “overall popularity of the Republican Party has now dropped” below Cheney’s “abysmal level.” In fact, the party is now at only 25 percent, down four points from April. “Okay, the difference is within the margin of error, making this a statistical tie,” said Sargent. “But still, this is pretty awful for the GOP, given that for a long time Cheney’s historic unpopularity seemed to define a kind of low-water mark among Republicans.”
Hannity: Only Fox News Deserves ‘Unprecedented Access’ To The White House
Hannity: Only Fox News Deserves ‘Unprecedented Access’ To The White House
Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity interviewed Karl Rove about ABC’s upcoming special “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” which will feature President Obama answering “questions offered by audience members ‘selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate’” on health care. Hannity and Rove — echoing a recent Washington Times piece — raised questions about what they called the “unprecedented access to the White House” granted to ABC for their “infomercial” on health care reform:
HANNITY: Karl, it seems rather unprecedented. You were there in the White House for the better part of eight years. Did this ever happened while George W. Bush was president?
ROVE: You know, look, it’s normal for the networks to want to come in and do an interview inside the White House or to get a glimpse behind the curtain as to what goes on there. This is an unprecedented access to the White House and more importantly an unprecedented use of the White House. I can’t remember a time when the network came in and was going to devote a significant block of time to covering an issue that was on the president’s agenda.
As Media Matters first noted, when Fox News’ Bret Baier was granted “unprecedented access” to the White House in Feb. 2008, the network billed it as a “documentary,” not an “infomercial.” Further, Fox was not only welcomed into the White House, but aboard Air Force One, to Bush’s ranch in Texas, and into the Oval Office. Baier introduced the “documentary” saying, “Fox News has been granted unprecedented access inside the President’s world. … It’s a President Bush you’ve never seen before.” Watch a compilation of Hannity last night and Baier’s special:
Prior to airing the Bush special, Baier hosted a special on the famously-reclusive vice president entitled “Dick Cheney: No Retreat.” Fox billed it as “a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president” and aired the program Oct. 13, 2007. Similarly, on Oct. 30, 2007, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren was granted what she called “unprecedented access” to First Lady Laura Bush’s tour of the Middle East.
In the period leading up to Fox gaining such access to the Bush White House, former Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow was serving as White House Press Secretary, leaving office just weeks before Baier’s first documentary aired.
REPORT: Key Terror Detainee Acknowledged ‘I Make Up Stories’ In Response To Torture
REPORT: Key Terror Detainee Acknowledged ‘I Make Up Stories’ In Response To Torture
The Bush administration has long justified its use of torture by claiming that it obtained valuable information from torturing 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Late last year, former Vice President Dick Cheney said, “Did it produce the desire results? I think it did.” He explained:
I think, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the number three man in al Qaeda, the man who planned the attacks of 9/11, provided us with a wealth of information.
But according to documents released by the Obama administration in response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, Cheney was lying. Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he gave false information to the CIA after withstanding torture:
“I make up stories,” Mohammed said, describing in broken English an interrogation probably administered by the CIA that concerned the location of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
“Where is he? I don’t know. Then he torture me,” Mohammed said. “Then I said, ‘Yes, he is in this area.’”
The torture of Mohammed, who we know was waterboarded 183 times in one month, “underscores the unreliability of statements obtained by torture.”
In an interview with Fox News’ Brit Hume earlier this year, President Bush admitted that he personally authorized the torture of Mohammed. He said he personally asked “what tools” were available to use on him, and sought legal approval for waterboarding him:
BUSH: One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.
Watch it:
Cheney responds to Panetta: ‘I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted.’
Cheney responds to Panetta: ‘I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted.’
In an interview with Jane Mayer for the New Yorker, CIA Director Leon Panetta responded to former Vice President Cheney’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, saying, “It’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point.” Earlier today, Cheney released a statement in response to Panetta. “I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted. The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the last eight years,” the statement read. Cheney’s reference to Panetta as his “old friend” is significant. Indeed, it reminds us that Panetta’s assessment of Cheney’s intentions was not from the mouth of a long-time political enemy, but rather from a former colleague and long-time friend. Cheney endorsed Panetta’s nomination to CIA in January, specifically noting their long relationship. “I am very fond of him. He is a very talented guy,” Cheney said:
FOX NEWS: Leon Panetta for CIA director — does that choice trouble you in any way, due to his lack of intelligence experience?
CHENEY: I know Leon. We first met back in the Nixon administration when we were both Republicans. And then I served with him for 10 years in the House of Representatives. He was, of course, a Democrat, I was a Republican in the House. I like him a lot. He is one of my favorite Democrats, if I can put it in those terms.That may be the kiss of death for Leon, but I am very fond of him. He is a very talented guy. [Fox News, 1/12/09]
The Director was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama’s security policies have made our country less safe. That’s all there is to it. Everyone understands that al-Qaeda and its allies are a dangerous and determined enemy.
CIA Director says Cheney sounds like he is ‘wishing that this country would be attacked again.’
CIA Director says Cheney sounds like he is ‘wishing that this country would be attacked again.’
In her profile of CIA Director Leon Panetta in this week’s New Yorker, Jane Mayer reports that Panetta believes former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to terrorism almost suggests “he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again”:
Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor. “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” he told me. “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”
The language Cheney has chosen to use has suggested he is anticipating another attack. In a CNN interview earlier this year, he explicitly fear-mongered that Obama is “making some choices” that “raise the risk..of another attack.” And in an interview with Politico, Cheney “warned that there is a ‘high probability‘ that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.”
Sanford: Cheney’s prominence ‘probably isn’t’ good for the GOP.
Sanford: Cheney’s prominence ‘probably isn’t’ good for the GOP.
Today, ABC News’ Jake Tapper interviewed Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) for an ABC News podcast. Sanford conceded that it is not good for the Republican Party to have Vice President Cheney at the forefront, and repeatedly suggested that old leaders need to make a “conscious deferral” and step aside:
TAPPER: What’s your view on the prominent that Vice President Cheney has created for himself?
SANFORD: I’d say the beauty of America is, you know, it’s everybody’s prerogative. So if that’s his thing, you know, go for it.
TAPPER: But is it good for your party?
SANFORD: Probably isn’t. … You know, while somebody may have been at the top at one point, to really keep an invigorated political system, you’ve got to have new voices stepping in and stepping to the plate and giving their opinions. And any time you have some of the senior leaders continuing to lay out their case for what they believe, it probably usurps the voice of new leaders coming in.
When Tapper asked Sanford how he felt about Rush Limbaugh, Sanford suggested that Limbaugh was one of the leaders “who have had more than their share of time at a front-row seat.” “If you’ve got a disproportionate microphone, you might want to share it,” Sanford said. Listen to it:
Far right feels betrayed and outraged by Cheney’s ‘backhanded pro-gay approach.’
Far right feels betrayed and outraged by Cheney’s ‘backhanded pro-gay approach.’
In a speech last week, Vice President Cheney gave some of his strongest comments yet in favor of same-sex marriage, saying that “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish.” The right wing is now furious at Cheney. Washington-area pastor Bishop Harry Jackson is a “point man” for far right causes and a “star” of its efforts to “elevate the visibility and voices of politically conservative African American pastors.” In an interview with OneNewsNow, Jackson said that he is “outraged” by Cheney’s remarks:
Jackson, a Washington-area pastor and chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition, says ironically, at the same time President Bush “lost steam” on the marriage issue in 2006, Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary was talking openly with the media regarding her lesbian lifestyle.
“I believe that Cheney’s own ambivalence that has now manifested itself into what seems like a backhanded pro-gay approach was one of the things that kept the President [Bush] from going forward,” he contends. “So, I’m outraged that we’ve been promised things by the GOP — specifically by the president — that haven’t really come into fruition.
Cheney Acknowledges Passing The Buck On GM: Bush Didn’t ‘Want To Be The One Who Pulled The Plug’
Cheney Acknowledges Passing The Buck On GM: Bush Didn’t ‘Want To Be The One Who Pulled The Plug’
Last night on Fox News, Vice President Cheney admitted that the Bush administration deliberately decided to pass the buck on GM and let President Obama deal with the problem. Cheney admitted that he thought the “right outcome was going to be bankruptcy,” but that President Bush didn’t want to “be the one who pulled the plug.” Instead, the Bush administration put together a costly auto bailout to stem the tide until President Obama took office:
CHENEY: Well, I thought that, eventually, the right outcome was going to be bankruptcy. … And the president decided that he did not want to be the one who pulled the plug just before he left office.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why?
CHENEY: Well, I think he felt, you know, these are big issues and he wouldn’t be there through the process of managing it, but in effect, would have sort of pulled the plug on GM and that was one of the first crises the new administration would have to deal with. So he put together a package that tided GM over until the new administration had a chance to look at it, decide what they wanted to do.
VAN SUSTEREN: But it’s cost us billions to get — I mean, you know —
CHENEY: It has. … And now the government owns a big chunk of General Motors. That bothers me. I don’t like having government own those kinds of major financial enterprises. I think it’s — it does damage to our long-term economic prospects when we get government involved in making those kinds of decisions.
Watch it:
When announcing his $17.4 billion auto bailout in December 2008, Bush said that “bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies.” Cheney is now saying that they were thinking about bankruptcy all along, but instead used billions of dollars of taxpayer money to push their problems onto the Obama administration.
Even former Republican senator Rick Santorum last week went on Greta’s show and chastised the Bush administration, saying that officials “blew it” for punting the problems onto Obama:
SANTORUM: President Bush blew it. You know, he went out and convinced the Congress to give him a bunch of money to save the financial sector and then decided to take a little piece of that and give it to General Motors and Chrysler. Why? He punted. He basically said, I don’t want this failure to be on my watch. I want to let Obama deal with it. And we all knew at the time that letting Obama deal with it means the government’s going to come in and run the show, and that’s exactly what’s happened.
Of course, even though Obama has managed to prevent a “disorderly liquidation of American auto companies,” it isn’t good enough for Cheney. Of course, Cheney offered no alternative vision during last night’s interview.
Transcript: More »
Cheney on daughter Liz: ‘I’d love to see her run for office some day.’
Cheney on daughter Liz: ‘I’d love to see her run for office some day.’
For the last few weeks, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice president, has been an omnipresent force in the news. For example, she made 12 appearances in the 10 days between May 12 and May 22, prompting many to wonder whether she jumpstarting her own political career. In an interview with Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren that aired last night, Dick Cheney said he’d love to see his daughter follow in his footsteps:
VAN SUSTEREN: Think we’re going to see a lot of Liz Cheney in the next couple years? … It sounds like she’s getting involved in a lot lately.
CHENEY: Well, I would — you know, I’m, of course, a proud father, but I’d love to see her run for office some day. I think she’s got a lot to offer. And it’s been a great career for me. And if she has the interest, and I think she does, then I would like to see her to embark upon a career in politics.
Watch it:
Reacting to unnamed Republicans who are pushing Liz Cheney to run for office, Steve Benen wrote, “I can’t help but find all of this rather ridiculous. For one thing, Liz Cheney’s penchant for dishonesty rivals that of her father’s. For another, the ‘Cheney’ name is not exactly a strong political ‘brand’ right now.”
Cheney: Iraq war ’saved lives.’
Cheney: Iraq war ’saved lives.’
Speaking this afternoon at the National Press Club, Cheney vigorously defended the Bush administration’s national security policies, including the decision to go to war in Iraq, which he rhetorically linked to 9/11 over and over. He also declared that the Iraq war “saved lives”:
CHENEY: The problem we were faced with in the aftermath of 9/11 was the possibility of another 9/11-style attack, only with much deadlier technology, a 9/11 with nukes or biological agents of some kind. That concern drove a lot of our thinking in that period, in those months after 9/11. … I think it was a sound decision to make. I think it was an important part of our overall strategy in the Global War on Terror. I think it saved lives.
Watch it:
Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. He had no links to al Qaeda. And the Iraq war has resulted in the deaths of more than 4,300 American soldiers and roughly 100,000 Iraqis.
Cheney on same-sex marriage: ‘People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union.’
Cheney on same-sex marriage: ‘People ought to be free to enter into any kind of union.’
At the National Press Club today, former Vice President Dick Cheney gave some of his strongest comments yet in favor of same-sex marriage. Asked if “some form of legalized marriage” was “inevitable in the United States,” Cheney said that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish,” said Cheney, adding that believes marriage should be regulated at the state level. Watch it:
Cheney’s answer at the press club was pretty much the same answer that he usually gives when asked about the subject. But in the past, Cheney has said that “people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.” Today, he used he word “union.”
Transcript: More »
Cheney Blames Richard Clarke For 9/11: ‘He Missed It’
Cheney Blames Richard Clarke For 9/11: ‘He Missed It’
Writing in Sunday’s Washington Post, Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief under Presidents Clinton and Bush, slammed Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice for invoking what he called “the White House 9/11 trauma defense” — namely, the shock of 9/11 was so great as to justify all and any actions taken in the name of national defense. Clarke called the decisions on interrogations, detentions, and Iraq were all “wrong,” and the White House panic proved that Cheney and company had simply been ignoring the warning signs:
Cheney’s admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.
Speaking at the National Press Club today, Cheney struck back at Clarke. When asked about Clarke’s argument, Cheney — once again — invoked the “burning ashes” of 9/11 and the victims who leaped to their deaths from the World Trade Center. Then, quite succinctly, Cheney pinned the entire blame for 9/11 on Clarke:
CHENEY: You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it. The fact is that we did what we felt we had to do, and if I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing.
Watch it:
When the moderator reminded Cheney that Clarke had repeatedly warned the administration about al Qaeda’s determination to attack the U.S., Cheney snarkily replied, “That’s not my recollection, but I haven’t read his book.”
In fact, it was Cheney who “missed” the warning signs, not Clarke. New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” reprinted some of Clarke’s emphatic e-mails warning the Bush administration of the al Qaeda threat throughout 2001:
“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)
“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)
“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)
“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)
“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)
“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)
“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)
Similarly, Time Magazine reported in 2002 that Clarke had an extensive plan to “roll back” al Qaeda — a plan that languished for months, ignored by senior Bush officials:
Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. … In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, “Response to al Qaeda: Roll back.” … The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.
Cheney needs to check his “recollections” before blaming former employees for the single most devastating attack in American history.
Cheney Now Willing To ‘Welcome’ Powell Back Into The GOP: ‘I Meant No Offense’
Cheney Now Willing To ‘Welcome’ Powell Back Into The GOP: ‘I Meant No Offense’
Earlier this month, Vice President Cheney made headlines by saying that Rush Limbaugh is a better Republican than former Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell. “Well, if I had to choose — in terms of being a Republican — I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think,” said Cheney on CBS’s Face the Nation. “My take on it was that Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.” Powell later responded, saying that while he may be out of the Cheney-Limbaugh version of the GOP, “there’s another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again.”
Yesterday, Cheney went on CNBC and walked back his remarks. He said that he never meant any “offense” to Powell and “wasn’t seeking to rearrange his political identity”:
CHENEY: Well, we’re happy to have General Powell in the Republican Party. I was asked a question about a dispute he was having, I think, with Rush Limbaugh, and I expressed the consent, the notion I had that he had already left since he endorsed Barack Obama for president. But I meant no offense to my former colleague. I wasn’t seeking to rearrange his political identity.
KUDLOW: So you welcome him back into the party.
CHENEY: We’re in the mode where we welcome everybody to the party. What I don’t want to do, in the course of trying to expand the overall size of the Republican Party and expand our base, is to talk away from basic fundamental principles.
Watch it:
Although Cheney said that he will “welcome everybody” into the Republican party, what he really seems to mean is that anyone is welcome — as long as they check their beliefs at the door and ascribe to the Cheney-Limbaugh version of the party. After all, he said earlier this month that he thinks it “would be a mistake for us to moderate.” As RNC Chairman Michael Steele has summed up this new GOP, “Understand that when you come into someone’s house, you’re not looking to change it. You come in because that’s the place you want to be.”
Transcript: More »
Rove sides with Cheney, says he would pick Limbaugh over Powell.
Rove sides with Cheney, says he would pick Limbaugh over Powell.
Earlier this month, Dick Cheney made headlines after telling CBS that he would rather have Rush Limbaugh in the GOP than Colin Powell. “Well, if I had to choose — in terms of being a Republican — I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think,” he said. Today on Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove said he agrees with Cheney:
Q: Dick Cheney said if it’s a battle between, or a choice between Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell, he sides with Limbaugh. You?
ROVE: Uh, yes, if I had to pick between the two. But you know what? Neither one of those are candidates. Neither one of those are going to be people who are offering themselves for office. This is a false debate that Washington loves.
Watch it:
Former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge took a shot at Limbaugh today, telling CNN that Limbaugh can be “shrill” and uses language in a way “that offends very many.” “[W]ords mean things and how you use words is very important,” Ridge said. “But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourself but let’s respect others opinions and let’s not be divisive.”
Liz Cheney Reveals That Fear Of Prosecution Motivates Dad’s Media Blitz Defending Torture
Liz Cheney Reveals That Fear Of Prosecution Motivates Dad’s Media Blitz Defending Torture
Since President Obama released Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel memos detailing the authorization of the Bush administration’s torture program, Vice President Cheney has taken to the public airwaves on numerous occasions, not only attacking Obama’s security policies but vigorously defending what he perceives (wrongly) as the efficacy of torture. “I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of lives,” Cheney said recently on CBS.
In response, many in the media have asked why Cheney — someone who had avoided the media at all costs during his eight years as vice president — would be airing his opinions in such a forceful and public way. Indeed, Cheney himself has answered this question, claiming he is speaking out because he believes that torture and other Bush administration anti-terror policies — many of which Obama is abandoning — were “exactly the right thing to do” and that “there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth.”
In turn, media figures have answered the question in much the same way. “I think he genuinely believes we are threatened now more because of what Obama is doing,” MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan has said. CNN’s David Gergen said, “I think Dick Cheney almost has a Churchillian view of this, and that is somebody has got to stand up and be the voice in the wilderness.” But while the narrative of Cheney’s motives focuses mainly on the righteous, it has all but ignored the selfish — that Cheney is trying to muddle the public debate with the goal of reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized.
Last night on CNN, however, Cheney’s daughter Liz revealed that fear of prosecution is indeed a motivating factor in the former vice president’s current media campaign:
L. CHENEY: I don’t think he planned to be doing this, you know, when they left office in January. But I think, as it became clear that President Obama was not only going to be stopping some of these policies, that he was going to be doing things like releasing the — the techniques themselves, so that the terrorists could now train to them, that he was suggesting that perhaps we would even be prosecuting former members of the Bush administration.
Watch it:
Does Liz Cheney also fear that her dad will be prosecuted for his role in the Bush administration’s torture program? Perhaps so. As Steve Benen has noted, “Liz Cheney has been all over the television news” as well, with “12 appearances, in nine and a half days, spanning four networks.”
Note To Scarborough: Cheney’s Alter Ego Went To Jail At The End Of ‘A Few Good Men’
Note To Scarborough: Cheney’s Alter Ego Went To Jail At The End Of ‘A Few Good Men’
Joe Scarborough’s defense of torture and its apologists has grown so desperate that he’s now resorting to quotes from fictional characters in Hollywood movies to support his position.
Indeed, this morning he said on MSNBC that in his view, the juxtaposition of President Obama’s speech on national security with former Vice President Cheney’s speech defending his torture program reminded him of the 1992 film A Few Good Men, in which a Marine is killed by two of his colleagues as they attempt to run him out of the service. (At the end of the movie, an unrepentant senior officer admits that he ordered the assault.):
SCARBOROUGH: This scene yesterday…I’m serious here, this comes straight out of “A Few Good Men.” The reason why the closing scene with Jack Nicholson on the stand worked so well, is, of course, we were all rooting for the young attractive Tom Cruise, just like more Americans are probably rooting for President Obama. But at the same time, what was said on that stand by Nicholson…I was struck by that contrast.
Scarborough insisted that he wasn’t comparing Obama to the character played by Tom Cruise or Cheney to the character played by Jack Nicholson, but it’s clear that Scarborough was doing exactly that. Watch it:
In the movie, Cruise’s character gets commander Col. Jessup, played by Nicholson, to admit that he ordered two young Marines to assault and kill their colleague. The Cheney-esque Jessup defends his decision by saying, “[his] death, while tragic, probably saved lives” and “[y]ou have no idea how to defend a nation. All you did was weaken a country today.” So in that sense, yes — Cheney’s speech yesterday was “straight out of ‘A Few Good Men.’”
But to refresh Scarborough’s memory, at the end of the movie, Jessup ends up going to prison for his actions. “[Y]ou’re under arrest, you son of a bitch,” Cruise tells Nicholson’s Cheney-esque character in a dramatic scene at the end of the movie.
So to keep playing out Scarborough’s fantasy world — Will real-life end the same way “A Few Good Men”did? Based on his continued insistence that torture works(!), we’ll put Scarborough down as hoping “no.”
Ridge: Cheney is wrong.
Ridge: Cheney is wrong.
In an interview with CNN set to air on Sunday, former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said that he disagreed with Vice President Cheney’s claim that President Obama is making the country less secure. “Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney,” said Ridge. He added that although he disagreed with much of what President Obama said in his speech on national security yesterday, he also took issue with Cheney’s response. “It’s just the whole notion of a Republican vice president giving a speech after the incumbent Democratic president,” he said. “It’s gotta go beyond the politics of either party.” Watch it:
McCain on Cheney’s torture speech: ‘I just don’t see where it helps.’
McCain on Cheney’s torture speech: ‘I just don’t see where it helps.’
Vice President Cheney’s speech on national security yesterday has been received positively by several Republican senators. In an interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday, however, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that Cheney’s full-throated defense of torture isn’t helpful:
He told me of his fundamental disagreement with Cheney: “When you have a majority of Americans, seventy-something percent, saying we shouldn’t torture, then I’m not sure it helps for the Vice President to go out and continue to espouse that position,” he said. “But look, he’s free to talk. He’s a former Vice President of the United States. I just don’t see where it helps.”
And then he got acerbic: Cheney, he says, “believes that waterboarding doesn’t fall under the Geneva Conventions and that it’s not a form of torture. But you know, it goes back to the Spanish Inquisition.”
Yesterday on Fox News, McCain reiterated that waterboarding is “not a new technique, and it is certainly torture.” “You hear it from al Qaeda operatives that when we torture people and it becomes public, then it helps them recruit,” he said. Watch it:
Romney: Obama’s speech was ‘more tortured’ than Bush’s interrogation tactics.
Romney: Obama’s speech was ‘more tortured’ than Bush’s interrogation tactics.
Blogging at The Corner today, Mitt Romney panned President Obama’s speech on national security, saying that Vice President Cheney’s “response” to Obama was “direct, well-reasoned, and convincing.” Romney mocked Obama’s speech condemning torture as being worse than Bush’s torture tactics:
He struggles to explain how he is keeping faith with the liberal advocates who promoted his campaign but in doing so, he breaks faith with the interests of the American people. When it comes to protecting the nation, we have a conflicted president. And his address today was more tortured than the enhanced interrogation techniques he decries.
Obama “said that the last thing he thinks about when he goes to sleep at night is keeping America safe. That’s a big difference with Vice President Cheney — when it came to protecting Americans, he never went to sleep,” Romney concluded. This would be news to Cheney. In October 2007, Cheney dozed off during a briefing on the California wildfires and also during his boss’s farewell address in January 2009. Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll