Mother Cheney comes to Dick's rescue

lynn · October-27th-2006, 06:58 PM

Cheney did not back simulated drowning:
White House
Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:48 PM ET

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The wife of Vice President Dick Cheney leaped to his defense on Friday after he was accused of endorsing simulated drowning by saying a "dunk in water" for terrorism suspects might be useful.

"This is complete distortion. He didn't say anything of the kind," Lynne Cheney told CNN's "The Situation Room" when asked if Cheney was endorsing "water boarding," an interrogation technique some human rights advocates consider torture.

The vice president was asked on Tuesday by a conservative radio host from Fargo, North Dakota: "Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"

"Well, it's a no-brainer for me," replied Cheney as part of a campaign by Republicans to keep national security on the minds of voters ahead of November 7 congressional elections.

Cheney did not address the controversy on a trip to Missouri, but his wife, President George W. Bush and White House spokesman Tony Snow all came to his defense.

"This country doesn't torture. We're not going to torture. We will interrogate people we pick up off the battlefield to determine whether or not they've got information that will be helpful to protect the country," Bush told reporters.

Cheney's comment prompted complaints from a human rights group that he was endorsing a technique called "water boarding" that simulates drowning.

"If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American's head under water until he nearly drowns, if that's what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

U.S. interrogation techniques came under scrutiny after evidence emerged of detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after the revelation last year that the CIA ran secret prisons outside the United States for terrorism suspects.

Snow insisted that U.S. officials do not talk publicly about interrogation techniques because they are classified.

"The vice president says he was talking in general terms about a questioning program that is legal to save American lives and he was not referring to water boarding," Snow told reporters during the second of two briefings dominated by questions about Cheney's remarks.

"You can push all you want. He wasn't referring to water boarding and would not talk about techniques," Snow added.

WATER BOARDING SAID BANNED

The possibility of water boarding being used as a technique was a factor in a revolt by three senior Republican senators in September against a Bush proposal for a new law allowing tough CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects.

The White House has refused to describe what interrogation techniques will be allowed under the program, although Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, has said he was confident water boarding and other such techniques would be banned under it.

But North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan said Cheney's remarks showed that the legislation that was eventually approved was too vague.

"I think Vice President Cheney's remarks make it clear that what was passed by Congress is sufficiently nonspecific to allow the administration to interpret it however they wish," he told reporters.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in Missouri and Susan Cornwell and Caren Bohan in Washington)

Who would have thought that Dick would send his wife out to fight his battle. Girlie Man!

patricia · October-27th-2006, 11:02 PM

I saw Ms. Cheney being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer today. I must say that Blitzer was uncharacteristically wiley. She was under the impression that she was going to be getting free publicity for her children's book, newly written.

However, Wolf launched almost immediately into questions about the torture policy pushed by DICK. He actually hung in there and she retaliated by sliming the series Broken Government that is being run on CNN.
She was also asked about the veiled lesbian references in her 1981 book, Sisters, which she said weren't there.
It was interesting how Blitzer put her on the defensive, which has not been typical of his toadying interviews in the past.

Gary Sisco · October-28th-2006, 09:19 AM

Hilarious.

It's not the actual behavior that makes it torture or water boarding. What's important is what Cheney calls it. Or doesn't.

These are people who live in another dimension of the universe than the rest of the planet. They think what they say isn't what they say or if it was it wasn't what they meant to say even if it was what they meant to say.

GoodSpeak · October-28th-2006, 02:52 PM

"Would you agree a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?"

OK.

Lemme take a whack at this one...Snow's contention is water boarding isn't what Dick meant when the response to the above question was, and I quote: "Well, it's a no-brainer for me."

Um...huh?

Perhaps he thought the interviewer was talking about taking prisoners out for an afternoon dip in the White House pool.

lynn · October-28th-2006, 07:08 PM

Just count on them to mean exactly what they say and then deny having ever said it.

GoodSpeak · October-29th-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynn

Just count on them to mean exactly what they say and then deny having ever said it.

Good point.

Sandi22 · October-29th-2006, 07:30 PM

Funny Lynn. But the crux of the matter sure isn't. Can you believe these people?

GoodSpeak · October-29th-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi22

Funny Lynn. But the crux of the matter sure isn't. Can you believe these people?

Well....they are republicans, after all.

Dr Dave · October-29th-2006, 11:14 PM

What creeps me out is the way Bush always uses the present tense when he talks about torture. "We don't torture" is not the same as "We never tortured." Given the way these guys talk, I have to assume it means torture happened during the Bush Administration. And somehow I have the idea that torture still goes on, except it is no longer defined as "torture."

And, of course, Cheney himself never backs down from anything he says. He lets Bush et al do it for him. I suppose it's an open secret that Cheney actually runs the country, but jeez, you'd think he'd be a bit more discreet about it.

patricia · October-29th-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I suppose it's an open secret that Cheney actually runs the country, but jeez, you'd think he'd be a bit more discreet about it.

No need, Dr Dave.
The voting public knew about a good portion of the sins of the Bush Administration before the '04 Presidential Election, and yet...............there they all still are.
Go figure.

patricia · October-30th-2006, 10:01 AM

Ms. Cheney went on to parrot Bush Administration talking points.....one after the other.

Credit to Wolf Blitzer for standing his ground, amoung all his so to speaks and as it weres.
I think that Ms Cheney was taken aback that anyone dared to actually ask the questions about torture and challenge her husband's veracity.

She clearly expected the fawning and flattering that she has become used to, when being interviewed.

About time. Maybe too late. But, maybe not.

If the Democrats gain the seats they seek, they have a two year apprenticeship of sorts to serve.

It will be a difficult one, if they hope to put their candidate, whoever it turns out to be, in the White House.

Providing oversight seems to be the immediate need.

But, taking back the White House, though God knows why they want to, will be another, much bigger battle.

If the Dems take back the house at the mid-terms and are not able to make a difference in how the war is being waged, or any of the other problems that exist, they may be judged as being ineffective, even though the Bush Administration still holds the reins.

The big fight is in '08, IMO.
The mess that has been created in the last six years will almost certainly take more than two years to resolve.

If it is not resolved, the Republicans may very well form the government in '08, by indirectly blaming the Democrats for not fixing the flat when and if they take over oversight after the mid-terms.

The balance of power, even with a Democratic House and Senate is still heavily weighted in favour of the party in power.

Those who may expect a miracle if the encumbents running in the mid-terms are tossed out may ask too much.
They may be persuaded to show their dissatisfaction in '08 by putting the Republican candidate in the White House....

We'll see.

Scott Dolan · October-30th-2006, 10:11 AM

Who the fuck is Lynne Cheney?

patricia · October-30th-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Who the fuck is Lynne Cheney?

DICK Cheney's lovely and talented wife.
She was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on the weekend.
She has a higher political profile than the other wives, since she used to co-host the now moth-balled Crossfire on CNN.

Gary Sisco · October-30th-2006, 10:14 AM

If, if, if. If the ocean boiled there'd be lots of cooked fish. (Denis Diderot)

Let's at least wait until this election's over, Pat, before entertaining future elections "mays." There's no guarantee of anything in a democracy except for this: If the people aren't willing to fight for it, they won't have it.

The war will continue for some years, yet, regardless of which party wins what. It will continue into the next administration, whoever it is, and whichever party.

The dims as a party are not antiwar anyway and haven't been all along. I can't for the life of me understand where that mythology comes from. There are some antiwar dims but the party itself is not, and neither will be any major candidates it selects. Indeed, the party itself rejected antiwar candidates during its last primaries. That about says it all, right there. They can't blame Republicans for what happens in their own caucuses, primaries, conventions, and so forth.

At most, the party has been opposed to the way in which the war has been waged, which is not at all the same thing as being antiwar. They may also want to argue that it was waged on the basis of lies, but so what. Everyone knows that, now. The past cannot be changed by anyone. In any case, every lie was refuted and publicly prior to the invasion. They had the same information as everyone else. They, too, most of them, agreed to turn deaf ears to those who countered every single admin serial rationale for going to war. It's absurd to go around blaming faulty intelligence when the faulty intelligence was shown at the time, publicly, to be faulty or downright dishonest. In that, all of them, both parties, are doing The McNamara.

patricia · October-30th-2006, 10:22 AM

Can't disagree Gary. Both the parties want to win, although the Dems failed to read the tealeaves in '04.

The situation in Iraq has turned out not to be a slam-dunk and IMO even what victory will consist of has become vague.

Right now, the prevailing opinion of the voting public seems to be that they want their troops home.
Peace with honour seems way out of reach and gets more unlikely as more people die and more billions are wasted.

If that's true, IMO, in order to take over the House and/or Senate the Dems don't necessarily have to have a solution to the daily killing in Iraq that is immediate, since they are not in power.

But, they do have to show that the House and Senate are not just a bunch of lazy fat cats who are rubber-stamping every damn fool proposal that the Bush Administration has been able to push through, unopposed, and undebated for the last six years.

That, IMO, is the tragedy.

Gary Sisco · October-30th-2006, 10:24 AM

The much vaunted power of incumbency and gerrymandering and so forth fails to account for the short-lived Gingrich nonrevolution, by the way. It fails to account for the Repugnants having taken back Congress from the dims, as well.

Many, many people who would have normally voted repugnant this election, won't. The power of incumbency cannot do a thing about that. For me, this vaunted power is just another fetish. Incumbent or not, if the people are in the mood for change -- and they are -- the power of their votes trumps incumbency and gerrymandering, both. If two percent of people who normally vote repub don't, and another one percent abstain, down she goes.

patricia · October-30th-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

The much vaunted power of incumbency and gerrymandering and so forth fails to account for the short-lived Gingrich nonrevolution, by the way. It fails to account for the Repugnants having taken back Congress from the dims, as well.

Many, many people who would have normally voted repugnant this election, won't. The power of incumbency cannot do a thing about that. For me, this vaunted power is just another fetish. Incumbent or not, if the people are in the mood for change -- and they are -- the power of their votes trumps incumbency and gerrymandering, both. If two percent of people who normally vote repub don't, and another one percent abstain, down she goes.

Here's hopin'
But, if the Dems do prevail, the journey has just begun.
Who knew that so much damage could be done in such a short time??

Gary Sisco · October-30th-2006, 10:35 AM

I don't expect anything at all out of them except for a desperately needed change of channel. A dim victory will also put an end to neo and theocons' power in DC. Back to the think tanks they will go, not a one of them being concerned about actually working for a living. And good riddance.

That's the most important aspect of a dim victory, house or senate or both.

This election is as much a referendum on the neo/theos as it is anything else. My prediction is that they've had their day in the sun, and the people have had enough of them. Americans are not the kind of people who will hold to things ideological when practical refutations are right there in their faces. That's one of the good aspects of the US's being a political kindergarten. Most people don't have a firmly thought-out-and-committed ideology capable of acting as a blinder on objective reality.

This year, it will be enough, for once, for the dims only claim to fame. That being that they aren't repubs.

Scott Dolan · October-30th-2006, 10:36 AM

Let's talk about Dick Durbins wife next.

Root Doctor · October-30th-2006, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Let's talk about Dick Durbins wife next.

Is she a public figure like Lynne Cheney?

Scott Dolan · October-30th-2006, 10:41 AM

She's married to a politician like Lynne Cheney.

Scott Dolan · October-30th-2006, 10:41 AM

She has as much to do with policy as Lynne Cheney.

Scott Dolan · October-30th-2006, 10:42 AM

In the grand scheme of things she's as important to me and you as Lynne Cheney.

Unless you read childrens books.

patricia · October-30th-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

She's married to a politician like Lynne Cheney.

Scott, as I mentioned earlier, Lynn Cheney is an alumnis of Crossfire, [1986 - 1992] a mostly pseudo-debate program, now defunct, on CNN.
She was a political voice for several years.
She is not merely the wife of a politician.
Come to think of it, Laura Bush is being ferried from town to town to balance the distaste for her husband, the President of the United States, by the Republicans.
She is definitely not a politician. But, there she is.

Scott Dolan · October-30th-2006, 10:50 AM

Quote:

She was a political voice for several years.

So what?

Quote:

She is not merely the wife of a politician.

Is she a legislator?

Attorney General?

Supremem Court justice?

Does she do anything meaningful at all besides write kiddie books?

patricia · October-30th-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Supremem Court justice?

Is that more prestigeous than Supreme Court Justice?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Lynne Cheney has often been interviewed about political matters, for the reasons I gave earlier.

But, this time I think she had the impression, why I don't know, that she was getting free publicity for her children's book.

She has written other books, the most discussed being a pulp-fiction, period novel called Sisters, copies of which are reaching ridiculous prices of near $1000 on e-bay right now.

Gary Sisco · October-30th-2006, 10:56 AM

Bernie Sanders is now referring to his wife as "Dr." -- German style. It's very strange for me to see my generation grow so fond of titles and the listing of degrees and so forth after one's name, like Brit decorations.

I often wish I hadn't completed my eternal degree program and recieved my BA, because I would dearly love to make a business card that reads "Gary Sisco, GED."

Root Doctor · October-30th-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Does she do anything meaningful at all besides write kiddie books?

I don't think she's capable of doing anything meaningful, but she is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, making her a political activist and more than just the wife of America's most incompetent blowhard.

La Cheney's written more than kiddie books, Scott. How can you forget her lesbian bodice ripper, "Sisters?"

Root Doctor · October-30th-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Bernie Sanders is now referring to his wife as "Dr." -- German style. It's very strange for me to see my generation grow so fond of titles and the listing of degrees and so forth after one's name, like Brit decorations.

I often wish I hadn't completed my eternal degree program and recieved my BA, because I would dearly love to make a business card that reads "Gary Sisco, GED."

I have this recurring nightmare where I have a heart attack and someone says, "Is there a doctor in the house?" As I start to shake off this mortal coil, my last memory is having a Ph.D in Educational Leadership pounding on my chest.

Gary Sisco · October-30th-2006, 10:59 AM

Or the huge advance she got on her autobiography that sold about seven copies. Her publishers must've been mad. She was set up for life in that one deal though.