Categories
Opinion The Last Word

The Rant

Dick and Liz Cheney

The last time Liz and Dick created this much fuss in the press, it was on the set of Cleopatra, back in the 1950s. I wish I were speaking of Richard Burton and Liz Taylor, but unfortunately, I’m referring to former Vice President “Deadeye” Dick Cheney and his mind-melded daughter, Fox News contributor and failed Senate candidate, Liz Cheney.

The Cheneys “co-authored” an editorial in the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal called “The Collapsing Obama Doctrine,” in which they stated, “rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.” I don’t often read the WSJ since I lost my money in the Bush Recession, but when I read that particular sentence, I had to lean back in my chair and take a few deep breaths at the deaf, dumb, and blind hypocrisy of the head designer and chief promoter of the Iraq War.

Even Fox News’ Megyn Kelly seemed incredulous during an interview on a network that’s usually obsequious to Liz and her dad. When Cheney was asked if the same question might be directed at him after such previous statements as “we would be regarded as liberators in Iraq,” and “the insurgency is in its last throes,” he replied without a trace of shame: “We inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody’s mind about the extent of Saddam’s involvement with weapons of mass destruction. We did the right thing.”

No doubt in anybody’s mind? There was doubt in everybody’s mind who could see through Dick Cheney’s master plan to march this country into an unnecessary war. Now that American troops are gone and Iraq is dissolving into chaos, Cheney, along with his personal bad seed, is trying to deflect blame everyplace but where it belongs: in his bloody hands.

He lashed out against fellow Republican Rand Paul for stating that trying to blame Obama for the Iraq disaster was misdirected, and blasted Bill Clinton for whatever reason he could come up with. The Cheneys contended, “On a trip to the Middle East … we heard a constant refrain in capitals from the Persian Gulf to Israel: ‘Can you explain why your president is doing this? … Why is he so blithely sacrificing the hard-fought gains you secured in Iraq?’ Liz and Dick continued, “Mr. Obama … abandoned Iraq, and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.”

One shabby, lazy, old journalistic trick when you wish to forward an opinion but can’t get anyone to speak on the record is to write, “Some people say,” or, “It has been stated in certain quarters.” This allows you to imply defamatory quotes made toward your intended target without actually quoting anyone. It says as much about the Cheneys’ deception as it does about how corrupt the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial department has become under the ownership of NewsCorp.

Does anyone who was awake for the past six years believe that the Bush administration handed Obama a victory in Iraq? This evil war has cost 4,500 American lives, trillions of dollars, and untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, yet Cheney still considers it “the right thing to do”? The WSJ “take your daughter to work day” editorial continues: “Despite the threat to America unfolding across the Middle East, aided by his abandonment of Iraq, he (Obama) has announced he intends to follow the same policy in Afghanistan.”

If memory serves, Obama won election and reelection on the pledge that he would put an end to the Bush wars. In Cheney’s eyes, victory in Iraq means a pliable puppet government and a permanent U.S. military presence to safeguard the oilfields that were supposed to pay for his misbegotten war. Cheney declares, “Al qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent and they present a security threat not seen since the Cold War,” with the same assurance that he proclaimed, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”  

Many pundits on the right still take Cheney seriously, but he’s lost Glen Beck. On his radio show, the cherubic prophet of the apocalypse proclaimed: “Liberals said, ‘We shouldn’t get involved, we shouldn’t nation build.’ They said we couldn’t force freedom on people … You are right, Liberals, you were right.”

Fox News gave the Cheneys a second joint interview, perhaps to assuage hurt feelings caused by Megyn Kelly, only this time it was to announce the formation of The Alliance for a Strong America, a grassroots organization founded, according to Liz, “because we know America’s security depends upon our ability to reverse President Obama’s policies.” While Liz dressed in all black, Dick sported a white cowboy hat and an oilskin vest, causing them to appear more like American Gothic than Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. All that was missing was the pitchfork.

Speaking from Wyoming, where Liz steamrolled her own sister while cozying up to the ultra-right in her losing Senate bid, the new Cheney “alliance” looked more like an attempt to shore-up Liz’s rabid-conservative bona fides for another run for Congress. Cheney claimed the group’s purpose is “to restore America’s power and preeminence” in the world. “President Obama has repeatedly misled the American people about the attacks in Benghazi and the true nature of the threat we face.”

Oh. I get it now. Benghazi. This is about fund-raising for the next election. “Benghazi” is like catnip for right wing pussies, and I mean that strictly in the “fat cat” political contributor sense of the word. But when it comes to Liz Cheney’s credibility, this silly drama can’t come close to matching a Shakespearean production co-starring Liz and Dick that I would much prefer seeing: The Taming of the Shrew.

Categories
Editorial Opinion

Stacey’s Gift

Well, let’s just go ahead and admit it. If Knoxville state Senator Stacey Campfield’s fellow Republicans succeed in purging him, via an establishment-backed candidate, in this August’s GOP primary, we may join in the public celebration that is

almost certain to occur. But we’ll be shamming a little bit.

The fact is, if he goes, we’ll miss Stacey. Who else but Mr. “Don’t Say Gay,” aka Senator “Starve the Children,” is anywhere near as capable of raising to consciousness the most outrageous and unworthy thoughts still extant in a Western Civilization striving to live up to its textbook ideals?

Who else is so good at giving voice to the undeclared agenda that is at the heart of the current Tea-Party-dominated Tennessee General Assembly?

“Starve the children?” Maybe an overstatement — though that’s exactly what was at the core of Campfield’s late, unlamented bill to take state assistance away from households whose children happened to be failing at school. “Ignore the children and starve their parents” is more accurate as a description of an administration and a legislature that have run riot over local school boards’ wishes and made it impossible for concepts such as minimum wage and living wage even to be discussed by the state’s city and county jurisdictions. So, of course, let’s add the concept of “disempower local governments” as an aspect of the overall state GOP mantra.

Campfield is down with all that — and more. But he has begun to offend his masters in the state Republican Party. Why? Because he talks too much (and writes too much on his blog), expressing too candidly what’s really on the mind of his party leaders. He’s blabbing state secrets, as it were.

Campfield may finally have crossed the line this week, however, and in so doing has become a candidate for official elimination. On his tacky/sassy online blog Camp4u, he supplied the following “Thought of the Week” on Monday: ”Democrats bragging about the number of mandatory sign ups for Obamacare is like Germans bragging about the number of manditory sign ups for “train rides” for Jews in the ’40s.”

Comparing insurance company sign-ups for health care to the annihilation of Jews in Hitler’s Final Solution? Not one ranking Republican, let alone Democrats and just folks, was willing to follow him there. The statement was, as state Democratic Chairman Roy Herron said, “outrageous, pathetic, and hateful.” To be sure. But what delights us more are almost identical statements by state GOP Chairman Chris Devaney (“No political or policy disagreement should ever be compared to the suffering endured by an entire generation of people.”) and House GOP Majority Leader Gerald McCormick (“[The] disgraceful blog post compared a policy dispute with the suffering of an entire race of people … .”)

And there, in a nutshell (ahem), is Campfield’s redeeming public service: By going so outrageously far afield, he is forcing his party’s leaders — who have done their share of demonizing the political opposition — into admitting that all their public bluster and invective aimed at Democrats is really just policy disagreement in disguise.

Fine, then. Let us henceforth reason together — and be thankful to Campfield for his own (inadvertent) contribution to political dialogue.