Defending Cheney At All Costs

Posted: Thursday, July 16, 2009 | Posted by Chico Brisbane | Labels: , , , , , ,

Isn't the real story that Liz Cheney couldn't possibly know anything about the "secret programs" that her father, former vice president Dick Cheney, ordered the CIA not to inform the congress about? -- Yet she goes from one TV appearance to another speaking as if she were there
at every cabinet meeting.

She certainly seems to know more about the issue then members of congress and that in itself should be a red flag. The primary battlecry of her campaign to defend her father is not welcoming of an investigation that could clear him of wrongdoing, but rather asserting that anything of the sort would be unamerican and why? Because no matter what, at the end of the day, they (Bush Administration) kept America safe from another attack.

Bill Clinton kept America safe after the first attack on the World Trade Center and he did so without launching a wide sweeping global war on terror that resulted in more U.S. Military personnel losing their lives then the number of citizens killed in the terrorist attact that set the whole thing in motion.

In the event that a future investigation should conclude that the vice president did infact break the law, violate the constitution or his oath of office, would this not make Ms. Cheney part of a conspiracy to cover it up and at a minimum, attempting to thwart an investigation or sway
public support for an investigation into these matters? - I think that we've all come to know the former vice president well enough to know that Ms. Cheney is not doing this without the approval, if not at the direction, of her father.

To the average Joe, this may come across as a tender notion by way of a loving daughter defending her fathers honor. However, for many of us out here in the blogosphere, it comes across as a way for the former vice president to control the storyline in the media while leaving the door open to step way from any or all of Ms. Cheney's comments at a later date should they conflict with reality.

Why is it that Rachel Maddow is nearly alone when it comes to mainstream commentator that strikes an even balance when holding Obama's feet to the fire. I have to admit that at first, I was not very keen on the idea. However, with the alternative being to take The Fox News Channel aprocach and support the administration at all costs, I've come to accept the fact that not doing that is more important then Obama having a second term even if the result is the White House falling back into the hands of the Republicans.

Not to Ignore Ed Shultz and others who are beginning to come around on Obama's "flat out 180's" but these two and MSNBC for that matter are just a small part of the media as a whole.
I understand that there are things that Presidential candidates can never realize until becoming president, but to take a position that sways from that during the campaign deserves an explaination no matter how substative or ambigious it may be.

All of this being said, I still have
no doubt that President Obama will turn the country around to the shigrine of the Republic Party.