Ken Starr Rebukes Liz Cheney On MSNBC

Share |

Liz Cheney has been under fire from both left and right after her group released a video that tried to paint Department of Justice attorneys as terrorist sympathizers for working on the defense of Guantanamo detainees. The ad refers to the DOJ attornies as "The Al-Qaeda 7"


One of the sternest rebukes comes from special prosecutor Ken Starr and it was especially ironic that Starr appeared on MSNBC's Countdown on Monday night, speaking with guest host Lawrence O'Donnell.

Starr isn't exactly a popular figure on the program, often criticized by and never making an appearance with regular host Keith Olbermann. But on this issue, Olbermann was happy for Starr to appear and refute Cheney. He relayed a message through O'Donnell, "that's how seriously we both take this, that even we agree on it."

Starr explained the role of lawyers in the American justice system and why it's considered appropriate for them to work in defense of an accused criminal. He drew both literary analogies, pointing out the judicial responsibilities felt by Atticus Finch, and historic comparisons, explaining how John Adams was once called upon to defend the British Redcoats in a court of law. As for the specific message being spread by Cheney and her organization, Keep America Safe, Starr did not mince words.

"This was very unwise, and really and out-of-bounds characterization and challenge to good, honorable lawyers."

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Liz Cheney's Compulsive Lies : Pathological or Hereditary?

Share |

There are many reasons why a person would lie, but to cover-up something is always, more often then not, the reason for the attempt. Across the vast abyss of the world wide web, you can find an endless supply of examples where Liz Cheney has just flat out lied, embellished, and repeated statements that are just flat out untrue .

Pathological liars often exaggerate issues. In this case, a person may not be lying deliberately. He/she would think and believe in their lies completely. A pathological liar would thus concoct lies in public to make people believe new stories just like Ms. Cheney did.

Ms. Cheney was quite clear when she said : "When President Bush used to do it, he'd do it without the cameras."

Now, either Ms. Cheney just made that narrative up as the words left her mouth, but made the mistake of assuming that all President's have made trips to Dover to honor our fallen soldiers.

She couldn't have confused it with another airfield or anything of that sort since George W. Bush never, and I mean NEVER went to be there for the brave men who where making their final trip home form a war they fought and died in at his command.

It's so easy for people to be frustrated with President Obama for not just shipping off 20,000 more men without stopping to make sure that we have a plan for getting in, executing the strategy, and getting the hell out. Or if that country even has a government.

You know what? If some Veteren who has been on a battle field wanted to put in his two cents in, that would be one thing, but for Dick Fucking Cheney and his Bi-Polar daughter to even open their pie holes after being caught in lie-after-lie and now just making making it up off the top of your head, it's a slap in the face.

Pathological liars often exaggerate issues. In this case, a person may not be lying deliberately. He or she would think and believe in their lies completely. A pathological liar would thus concoct lies in public to make people believe new stories very much like the way Ms. Cheney just concocted a story about President Bush not having any cameras around over at Dover when he went to pay his respects to our fallen soldiers.

It was another narrative that was now out there in the minds of Americans that she and daddy could use to make President Obama look like an opportunists.

Come on Liz! - If going with cameras after less then a year in office is bad, what is not going at all with or without cameras after nearly 8 fucking years. You said it yourself that every Commander In Cheif should do whatever they can to honor our military folks. Remember? - That's what you said Liz. Because these men have made the untimate sacrifice for thier country. Remember? - Those are your words Liz. But you see, here's the problem. Your fucking dad never went! - George Bush never went! - Neither of them went and they've had thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of opportunities to do so. THEY DIDN'T GO! - And you have the balls to say that George Bush did when you obviously didn't have a clue if he did or not.

But now we get it! - This lie is the proverbial bell that you cannot un-ring. You said "The way that Presdient Bush did it, he did it without cameras." Your talking about a process that George Bush used to do something that he has never done before.

You were not sure if he had or hadn't ever done that, but when you're live on the radio ,you had just laid out the bad version for Barack Obama and now you needed one of those "What would George Bush have done." and when you didn't know the answer with any amount of certainty, You frickin' made it up! - What's up with that?

Ms. Cheney.

To quote Joe Wilson,

Liz Cheney Attacks MSNBC Top To Bottom Except For Dr. Rachel Maddow?

Share |

Liz Cheney has started a political group to give the appearance of legitimacy to the tired old narritave that she's been reciting since her father's much anticipated term in office came to an end. She has ironically named her pet project "Keep America Safe," whose sole purpose is to rally opposition to the Obama administration's national security policies while promoting the stunning failures of the Bush administration.

The group's first project was a web ad attacking MSNBC and asserting that they're afraid to debate her on the "substance" of national security policy. You'd sware that the Cheney's have never owned a VCR or hadn't a clue what a DVR or TIVO was because they say things as if nobody will remember them saying something to the contrary a week, a month, or even a year earlier.

WATCH VIDEO:

The web ad produced by Ms. Cheney's group is devoted to making the case that Obama's reversal of Bush policies is radical and dangerous. The ad bashes Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as "afraid" to debate her on the "substance" of national security policy. The ad airs footage of Olbermann, Matthews, and Ed Schultz mocking the announcement of her group, and concludes:

"Why don't they want to talk substance? Why are they panicked? Why don't they want to debate the issues?"

The implication being, of course, that MSNBC is running scared from Ms. Cheney. It did not go un-noticed that while Ms. Cheney's ad was calling out Olbermann, Matthews, and Schultz, it doesn't say shit about the lovely and talanted Dr. Rachel Maddow whose criticism of everything that even rhymes with 'Cheney" overshadows the mild criticism of her "fellow" MSNBC counterparts.

Rachel has invited Liz Cheney onto her show many, many times, and yet, Cheney has declined every opportunity. Gee that's funny....why doesn't Liz Cheney want to talk substance? Why doesn't she want to debate the issues with Dr. Maddow

Liz Cheney: SUCK MY DICK CHENEY!

Share |

Liz Cheney, the biggest cheerleader for her father and former Vice President Dick Cheney, has now racked up more airtime thus far into Barack Obama’s administration then her father has in the 8 years he was in office. However, with each passing day, with each newly released CIA, DOJ, or IG report, it is clear that Cheney and the Bush Administration’s actions are beyond any rational defense. Also clear is that Ms. Cheney shares the same disconnect with honesty and integrity as her father.

Ms. Cheney has gone from playing fast and loose with the facts, to ignoring them completely. With newly released information, Liz Cheney has been relegated to sticking to a set of talking points that not only have no basis in fact, but no longer reside within the realm of possibility. They are simply tender notions that both Cheney’s hang onto in the childish hope that if they say them enough, maybe they’ll become the truth.

Sunday, on ABC's "This Week," Liz Cheney’s commentary was riddled with the sort of misstatements, obfuscations and downright lies that have now become a staple of her TV performances as well as the “shit eating” grin as pictured above.

When the discussion turned to Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate the CIA's interrogation practices used on suspected terrorism suspects during the Bush administration, Cheney adamantly argued against the probe. She said, "But this investigation has already been done. Career prosecutors looked this at for five years. They decided not to prosecute except in one case where a contractor has been convicted and is in jail."

The Justice Department's ethics office, the Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles attorney misconduct, recommended that Holder revisit nearly 12 prisoner abuse cases. This clearly suggests that the OPR is not satisfied with the previous investigations into the cases that occurred during the Bush administration. As, according to the Justice Department Web site, the OPR “is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys,” it is likely the office concluded that the Bush-era attorneys who made the previous decisions erred in some way.

During her appearance on ABC, Cheney also said directly that waterboarding "isn't torture." However, those in the Bush administration privately acknowledged that waterboarding was torture and President Obama has said it definitely violates the Geneva Conventions -- as has Republican Sen. John McCain. There seems to be near-universal agreement that waterboarding is, in fact, torture.

In a video made by ABC of the round-table participants talking after the show, Cheney then invoked the "ticking time bomb" scenario to justify using "enhanced interrogation techniques" and said that torture had worked in the past to prevent attacks on the U.S. However, recently released documents on the CIA's use of torture on detainees did not show that torture worked.

From just mid-May to early June, Cheney appeared on television news programs at least 22 times. And nearly every time she's been on, she's taken the opportunity to criticize President Obama -- but has often done so by reiterating factually dubious claims or flat-out lies. As MSNBC's Rachel Maddow quipped in June, "Liz Cheney is still on TV -- making news by apparently making stuff up." Yet, when asked why Cheney is continually booked on MSNBC, despite her problems with the truth, a network spokesperson called Cheney a "great guest."
Indeed. Here's a look at some of the recent times Cheney has strayed from the truth:

On July 21, Cheney defended the Birther movement on CNN's "Larry King Live" -- despite the fact that those behind the movement and their claims about President Obama's birth certificate have been thoroughly debunked.

On July 13, when it was revealed that former Vice President Cheney directed the CIA to keep information on a secret program to assassinate al-Qaida leaders from Congress for eight years, some Democrats called for an investigation into the matter. In response, Liz Cheney misrepresented what Democrats wanted to look into and told the Washington Times, "I am really surprised that the Democrats decide that that’s what they want to fight over. I mean, if they want to go to the American people and say that they disagree with the notion that we ought to be capturing and killing al-Qaida leaders, I think it’s just going to prove to the American people one more time why they can’t trust the Democrats with our national security."
During an appearance on CNN on June 10, Cheney blasted Obama for his foreign policy positions. She said, "I would say one of the things that is troubling to Americans, I think, is the extent to which this administration is focused on the president's popularity overseas. We've now seen several different occasions when he's been on the international trips, where he's not willing to say, flat out, 'I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe unequivocally, unapologetically, America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today.'"

However, as the Washington Monthly's Steve Benen pointed out at the time, on April 5, Obama in fact stated clearly, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I'm enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world."

Salon's Joan Walsh took her on for a variety of false claims during an appearance on CNN on June 9. Cheney argued that Obama's decision to close Guantánamo and possibly bring the detainees still held there to U.S. soil to stand trial would "make us less safe." Walsh pointed out that in 2006, President Bush had advocated for the very same thing, which Cheney denied, despite all evidence to the contrary. Walsh also discussed the numerous former Bush officials who are staunchly in favor of closing Guantánamo even as Cheney tried to depict the closing of the prison as a completely partisan decision.

On June 4, Cheney appeared on NBC and said that her father never made a link between 9/11 and Iraq in justifying the decision of the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from power. This is flatly false.

Socialist Or Jihadist: You Can Only Pick One

Share |

The claim that the Bush Administration “kept America safe from another attack.” following the September 11, 2001 attack on The Word Trade Center has been a talking point more then a fact from it’s first utterance. In order for such a statement to even be remotely true, George Bush and Dick Cheney would’ve had to pick up a rifle and stand a post in Afghanistan or Iraq. Anything short of that is not only absurd it’s bullshit.

After leaving office, the talking point became a mantra for former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz as they embarked on a media campaign following the release of legal opinions from The Department of Justices Office of Legal Council, which soon became known as “the torture memos.” - Both Cheney’s picked up the pace on their damage control tour and would always fall back on that mantra when their arguments in defense of torture where shot down like ducks in a row. “Well….at the end of the day, the Administration did keep America safe from another attack following 9/11.” Liz Cheney said countless times during the media campaign.

If that’s how the Cheney’s want us to see these events, then lets back up a few years to the first attack on the World Trade Center. President Clinton not only kept up safe through out the completion of two terms in office, but he managed to find the perpetrators, bring them to justice, and do so without launching pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation.

It was only a matter of months after Clinton handed control over to George W. Bush did that protection end when the new administration ignored several warning signs. The daily briefing that warned that Bin Ladin was determined to strike inside the U.S.” was ignored and couldn’t have been more explicitly informative then a courtesy call from Osama Bin Ladin himself.

Now President Obama seems to be falling into the same trap that war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is a noble cause that will protect America. The fact of the matter is that it won’t and in fact, if anything, it will only increase the desire for Islamic extremist to launch another 9/11-style attack and weaken the Pakistani Government by pushing Al Qaeda and the Taliban across its border.

I needn’t remind the current administration that Pakistan has nuclear weapons that these groups would just love to get their hands on. Yet the Republicans would have us believe otherwise or what Bush and Cheney wanted us to believe for the better part of 8 years. The war against terror was nothing more then a jihad similar to the objectives of Blackwater. It’s chief objective was to rid the world of not only Muslim extremist but also the Muslim faith itself. Therefore, if you supported George Bush, you’re a Jihadist. After all, isn’t that the new battle cry of the right? – If you support Barack Obama, you’re a socialist. Well…I’d rather be a Socialist then a Jihadist.

Cheney Memoir Against His Presidential Loyalty Principal

Share |

Immediately upon leaving office, the release of Department of Justice internal memos cast a far more sinister light on the former President and Vice President's instaiable appitite for war.

While former President George W. Bush quietly took up residence in the Huston suburbs, former Vice President Richard B.Cheney stayed behind in Washington. He and his daughter Liz, embarked on a media tour to sound the alarm over the new administrations "far left" agenda.

However, it soon became clear that the Cheney's focus was to validate the actions of the Bush Administration, and particularly the legal opinions coming out of the DOJ's Office of Legal Council that attempt to justify torture.

For the better part of two months, Liz Cheney defended, or attempted to defend her fathers actions and was usually left without a logical rebuttal, except "at the end of the day, they kept America safe for 8 years, " which most of the country did not agree with. In order for that statement to be true, George Bush and Dick Cheney would have had to pick up a rifle and stand a post in Afghanistan or Iraq, and we all know that didn't happen. However, we do know what happened the last time that Dick Cheney did pick up a rifle.

With Cheney's memoirs taking shape, it's clear that his distain for Geroge W. Bush goes beyond Bush's refusal to grant a Presidential pardon to Cheney's former Aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Bush did however commute Libby's sentance upon conviction in the Federal Court for purgery.

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

Some conservatives rebut the argument, noting that Bush was nothing if not stubborn in the face of political and public opposition. Commenting on the story, Joe Scarborough pointed out on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that Bush was defiant about the surge in Iraq despite the polls.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former White House press secretary Scott McClellan told tales out of school in their own books, Cheney blasted them in the media and said that The presidency is owed loyalty, or at least that was Cheney's view at the time.

That doesn't seem to be the case any longer since his own tell-all book will soon be going to press. Cheney is telling friends that "the statute of limitations has expired" on tensions between them. Last month, Time magazine reported that, Cheney was furious at Bush for not pardoning Scooter Libby, the vice presidential aide who, in Cheney's words, "was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder" by not disclosing all he knew about who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press.

Cheney is apparently sharing his recollections with groups of friends and associates, sort of prepping them for the disclosures to come in his 2011 book. After one group session, one Cheney associate told the Post's Barton Gellman that the former vice president is mad at 43 for being "shackled" by public opinion:

Told in one session that Bush, in his own memoirs, hoped to explore his personal feelings, Cheney responded that he had no intention of doing that.

Defending Cheney At All Costs

Share |

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.

Liz Cheney Falsely Claims Obama Does Not Believe In American Exceptionalism

Share |

Liz Cheney continued her seemingly unending campaign to flood the American media, and once again, she said something that isn’t true. This time, on CNN last night, she criticized the Obama administration for being "focused on the president’s popularity overseas." "We’ve now seen several different occasions when he’s been on the international trips, where he’s not willing to say, flat out, ‘I believe in American exceptionalism,’" Cheney complained. But of course, Obama has said this. Last April during a press conference at the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, Obama was asked if he "subscribe[s]…to the school of American exceptionalism."

Obama replied:
OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. … And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.
WATCH VIDEO


No, Obama did not say "America is the best nation that ever existed in history, and clearly that exists today," as Cheney wishes. But she essentially wants him to stand in front of a room full of foreigners and say, "We’re better than you." This is exactly the kind of cowboy diplomacy that has hurt America’s relationship with its allies over the last eight years and ultimately its standing in the world.

Liz Cheney Falsely Claims Bush ‘Did Not Say’ Gitmo Detainees Should Be Tried In U.S. Courts

Share |

Last night, Vice President Cheney’s daughter Liz appeared on a mainstream American television news media outlet, this time on Campbell Brown’s CNN show. During a contentious “Great Debate” segment with Salon’s Joan Walsh, Liz Cheney was trying to argue that bringing Guantanamo Bay detainees to U.S. soil “makes us less safe” and that they should remain where they currently reside.
To make her argument, Cheney also continued her penchant for false claims. At one point in the debate, Walsh noted that military leaders want Gitmo closed and that even President Bush once said it should be closed and that some detainees should tried in the U.S. Cheney, however, disagreed:
WALSH: Liz, the top — the top military leaders of our country want Guantanamo closed. President Bush, in June 2009 [sic], gave a speech where he said he would close it, and he would bring people home and try them here.
CHENEY: No, I’m sorry.
WALSH: President Bush said that.
CHENEY: He did not say he would bring terrorists onto the homeland. Joan, no, he didn’t say that.
Watch it:

Walsh is right, Bush did say that. During a June 2006 press conference at a U.S.-EU summit, Bush called for Gitmo to be closed and to have some of the detainees tried in U.S. courts:
BUSH: I’d like to end Guantanamo. I’d like it to be over with. One of the things we will do is we’ll send people back to their home countries. [...] There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts. They’re cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they’re let out on the street. And yet, we believe there’s a — there ought to be a way forward in a court of law.
However, Cheney’s canards didn’t end there. She also offered the debunked claim that “14 percent” of Gitmo detainees have “returned to the battlefield,” a claim Walsh noted is “not true.” Indeed, last week the New York Times issued a correction to its story, saying that the number is closer to 5 percent.

Liz Cheney: "We made mistakes, No question."

Share |

Liz Cheney admitted on Monday that when it came to her father's handling of the occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces, "certainly we made mistakes."

"There is just no question about that," said the former state department employee and ubiquitous defender of the Bush administration's national security policies.

Speaking at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center for the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute's Conservative Leadership Seminar, Cheney pinpointed the errors as stemming from a fundamental misjudgment about the strength of Iraq's political institutions.

"I think that when we were in the months and years right after Saddam was deposed, there are things that I probably would do differently now," she said. "We had this sense that one could go into a nation like Iraq and if you sort of either arrested or removed from office the top layer of leadership that other Iraqis would sort of rise up and take over. I don't think we expected the population to be so traumatized. But I think what we saw is that after decades of Saddam's rule nobody was willing to step up and take over. People waited for instruction for everything."

Watch Video:


The remarks, which went relatively unnoticed, reflect a willingness for introspection on Iraq that few of the war's most ardent defenders have allowed. The former vice president himself has admitted that mistakes were made, but primarily in posture, not policy. For instance, he has said it was wrong for him to have declared that the insurgency was in its last throes when it clearly wasn't. He has been decidedly less reflective about the troop levels that were deployed to the war in the first place and that had to deal with that insurgency.

Despite calling America's invasion of Iraq "by no means perfect," Liz Cheney, like her father promised that history books would declare the invasion to be a tremendous success. Already, she declared, the war had proven to be "a huge service for humanity, a huge service for security, a huge service for the Middle East, for the people of Iraq."

Cheney's Torture Program Shot Down From Every Angle

Share |

Bruce Fein, the former Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Regan spoke to MSNBC's David Schuster about Dick Cheney's torture program. On the topic of torture, Fein said that Cheney not only clearly knew, he lead the congressional briefing, he authorized, championed, and supported it.

Fein said that here are no exceptions to the torture prohibition. None for ticking time bombs. None for Al Qaeda. None for useful information. In her relentless media tour in defense of her father, Liz Cheney's seems to already understand the simplicity of the Fein's agrument. She focuses more on delivering a national message that her father's efforts have "saved thousands of American lives." and "averted a secondary terrorist attack following 9/11."

In seems as if both Cheney's are trying to create an understanding by the public at large, that while questionable or even outright illegal, the country is in immediate danger should President Obama and his administration not adopt and continue the torture program.

WATCH VIDEO:

Liz Cheney: Defending Daddy Tour Raises Call For Investigation

Share |

As Liz Cheney's whirlwind media junket slips into overdrive, her mug and message have been seen and heard on national television 22 times in the passed 24 days. Ms. Cheney who is not a member of the media, not a journalist, not a politician nor a candidate for public office, yet she seemes to have been given open access to a media platform to repeat the same old rationalizations in defense of her father's enhanced interrogation program, vis-a-vis torture.


Liz Cheney has made seven national appearances since Monday to defend her father, while similtaniously attacking Obama with rediculous Republican talking points. None of the networks that has featured Cheney's daughterit have questioned why they are seeking commentary on Dick Cheney's national security efforts from his own daughter. Liz Cheney not only sounds like her father, she lies like her father routinely on national television, she occasionally even
repeats bogus arguments that even her father won't say anymore. This isn't to pick on MSNBC, which has featured Liz Cheney's on-air attacks four times in the last eight days, and six times in the last 24 days. The other cable nets are just as bad.

In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Cheney insisted that her father had always disavowed the notion that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11th, while simultaneously suggesting that such a link was true. Then she sort of got snippy with Mitchell for the way she kept intimating that maybe this was all a little nonsensical.


The segment began generically enough, with Liz Cheney saying that she was, is, and continues to be troubled by the way the current administration keeps characterizing torture and rendition and the maintenance of Kafka-esque penal colonies as a bad thing. Where things really got testy -- downright mindbending -- was this exchange over Vice President Dick Cheney's appearance at the National Press Club, at which time, as Mitchell pointed out, he "seemed to be taking a step back" from contentions he had previously made about the connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

WATCH VIDEO :

Liz Cheney not only sounds like her father, she lies like her father routinely on national television, she occasionally even repeats bogus arguments that even her father won't say anymore. This isn't to pick on MSNBC, which has featured Liz Cheney's on-air attacks four times in the last eight days, and six times in the last 24 days. The other cable nets are just as bad.
In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Cheney insisted that her father had always disavowed the notion that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11th, while simultaneously suggesting that such a link was true. Then she sort of got snippy with Mitchell for the way she kept intimating that maybe this was all a little nonsensical.

MITCHELL: Has he rethought that? Was he rephrasing it?

LIZ CHENEY: No, this is something he has actually said for many years. There was a report in the aftermath of 9/11 that came from the CIA that Mohammad Atta had met in Prague --

MITCHELL: It was quickly discredited!

LIZ CHENEY: Well, let me finish. So, there was a report, and when the report was outstanding, you had a number of people in the administration publicly talking about the fact that there could have been a connection in terms of the Mohammad Atta meeting. Once it became clear that the report didn't hold up, he and others in the administration were out publicly saying that and there's been a real attempt in my view to blur the distinction. He has not said that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.


That's the core foundational document of the Iraq War and in it, clearly, the administration is arguing vehemently that there was a link between Iraq and both the September 11th attack and al Qaeda.

This warped recall of historical fact continues:

LIZ CHENEY: The issue is whether there's a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, which as he mentioned in that speech, George Tenet himself testified to, there's much evidence between the connection of Saddam and al Qaeda and Saddam and other terrorist organizations.

MITCHELL: Well, al Qaeda in Iraq, which was an offshoot, but didn't exist before the start of the war.

LIZ CHENEY: That's actually not true.

No, Liz, it actually is true, the testimony of "George Tenet himself" (I gather the "himself" is added to imply we should revere this historic bungler) notwithstanding.

In July of 2004, the 9-11 Commission found that there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda:

"We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
At around the same time, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed with these findings:


MITCHELL: Has he rethought that? Was he rephrasing it?


LIZ CHENEY: No, this is something he has actually said for many years. There was a report in the aftermath of 9/11 that came from the CIA that Mohammad Atta had met in Prague --


MITCHELL: It was quickly discredited!


LIZ CHENEY: Well, let me finish. So, there was a report, and when the report was outstanding, you had a number of people in the administration publicly talking about the fact that there could have been a connection in terms of the Mohammad Atta meeting. Once it became clear that the report didn't hold up, he and others in the administration were out publicly saying that and there's been a real attempt in my view to blur the distinction. He has not said that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.



She's correct that there's been a real effort to blur the distinction! But it's her father and the administration he participated in said effort. If you are looking for evidence of this, well, heck! Let's take a look at the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.
In plain English, it says:


Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;



Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;


Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;


Additional false foundation comes later in the Authorization:
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;


Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations.


That's the core foundational document of the Iraq War and in it, clearly, the administration is arguing vehemently that there was a link between Iraq and both the September 11th attack and al Qaeda.

Dick Cheney Terrified Of Prosecution

Share |

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is suffering from an adrenaline dump now that he has a view of his torture program from the side line. No longer the puppet master, he is seeing not only the totality of what he and George Bush have done over the passed 8 years, but all of the deception to the American people and the congress they felt was necessary to make it happen.

"I’m convinced, absolutely convinced, that we saved thousands, perhaps

hundreds of thousands, of lives," Cheney said recently on CBS.

If a horrific terrorist attack such as 9/11 claimed 3,500 lives. What kind of attack could Cheney possibly be convinced, absolutely convinced was thwarted by his actions and saved hundreds of thousands of lives? The only event where numbers of that magnitude come into play are the number of lives lost in the very war of choice that he and George Bush waged against Afghanistan and Iraq. His frightening realization was only made worse by President Obama releasing the internal memos from the Office of Legal Council that are at best, a pathetic attempt at justifying torture.

You simply cannot make legal what is illegal with a bunch of lawyers in a basement office over at the Department of Justice. That would require an act of congress and both Cheney and Bush knew that they would get no such thing from this congress. With the writing on the wall, Cheney embarked on a media junket, not out of love for his country or the honest belief that his actions were justified, but to save his own ass. This is Dick Cheney we're talking about-- can you imagine the level of desperation this man must be at to enlist the help of his wife and daughter to help fight his battle?

Many in the media have asked this very question. Why is Cheney -- someone who had avoided the media for most of his eight years as vice president -- suddenly looking for an audience no matter what the subject. He's said that the anti-terror policies of the Bush administration were "exactly the right thing to do" and that "there isn’t anybody there on the other side to tell the truth." -- He also says that we are thretened and more unsafe due to Obama abandoning many of these inhanced interrogation tactics. So which it it? -- Does Cheney believe that he could possibly convince Obama to adopt his torture program verbatum? - Does anyone belive that Cheney really cares about the safety of the American people or any person for that matter who is not related to him by blood? -- All Cheney cares about is reducing public support for a criminal inquiry into the torture regime that he authorized. PERIOD! -- He is pinning his hopes on being able to fool a simple majority of Americans one last time so that he can, once and for all, retreat to his beloved undisclosed location.

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."