Skip to comments.Megyn Kelly to Dick Cheney: Wrong, sir
Posted on 06/19/2014 5:48:13 AM PDT by yldstrk
FOX News Megyn Kelly had some tough questions for former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday night, after he and his daughter, Liz, offered a scathing review of the Obama administrations foreign policy.
In your op-ed [in the Wall Street Journal], you write as follows: Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many, Kelly said on her show The Kelly File. But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well sir. Continue Reading Text Size
- + reset
Latest on POLITICO
Kerry on Cheney: 'Please! Rubio: Obama is 'over' After uproar, paper drops Will column Playbook: Axelrod reveals book title Starbucks CEO brewed tuition deal Condi Rice: Wait for history to judge
Kelly then began listing shortcomings of the Bush administration, pointing out Cheneys statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the U.S. forces would be considered liberators and that Iraqi insurgency was in the throes in 2005.
Cheney responded that invading Iraq was the right thing and that it would have been irresponsible for us not to act.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dick-cheney-megyn-kelly-fox-interview-108049.html#ixzz355ZX5OFe
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Murdock meeting with Valerie Jarrett?
new Fox news policy
“Fair Means Unbalanced”
Meggie, Cheney never claimed to have been right all the time, he claimed no president (which he was not) has ever been wrong more times than Obama
shame on you
I don’t know. When is her contract up, and which channel/network does she want want to move to?
She should have waited to do the interview after watching Hannity’s show. He had an excellent montage of various high profile democrats making the case for going into Iraq. It was priceless.
She doesn’t kiss butt. That’s why her numbers are so high.
I am so sick of that weapons of mass destruction argument! No one EVER points out how much time Saddam Hussein was given to hide and distribute them with other ragheads.
I never thought boots on the ground in Iraq was a good idea.
For the life of me, I can’t understand why Bush thought it was necessary when ...
1. We already had boots on the ground in Afghanistan
2. Sadam’s air force was effectively neutralized
3. Sadam had an iron grip on the Iraqi population and had no qualms about ruthlessly killing any and all opposition, including the islamo-fascists.
4. The Christian population was as secure as anybody else in Iraq.
5. Anything that needed to be done to Iraq could be done from the air or with Black Ops.
6. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, other than Saddam celebrating it.
7. Eventually a demonRAT would be elected that would reverse any and all gains made in Iraq, meaning that any American blood shed there would be wasted in vain.
This is from Politico.. so I mistrust it more than Kelly
But did she really used the “no chemical weapons” line with Cheney?
It was Bill Clinton and HilLIARy and Kerry and many other democrats who said the same thing BEFORE Bush was even elected, and there are even pictures of the dead Iraqi people Saddam gassed in his own villages.
Cheney is wrong about Iraq. Democracy building in that region is a dumb idea. Whether its republican or democrat who tries it. Democracy is contrary to their religion. Its not going to work. We got our guys all shot up working on a plan that could never be successful.
Saddam has WMDs; he shipped them to Syria before the war. There is no other explanation for how Syria obtained WMDs.
I saw this segment, and thought that Cheney answered brilliantly.
You can do that with an experienced and intelligent interlocutor like Dick Cheney or a Ted Cruz but you have to be careful if you try it with a George Bush.
She was doing Cheney a favor, she was giving him a microphone and a megaphone. At the end of the interview she gave him softball questions.
If only the mainstream media behaved him him this way we would be in control the White House as well as the Senate.
The way I saw it was that she was asking the questions that others were asking. The questions were asked in a manner that Cheney could defend himself. That became clear to me after the follow up questions. It did not appear to me that they were gotcha questions. That was just my take on the interview.
Stardom is going to her head!
Megan is slowly developing the “O’Reilly syndrome”, becoming obsessed with her own “importance” in her new time slot. Next thing we know, she’ll be writing mindless books and using the last ten minutes of her show hawking them!
I have stopped watching her, and Greta, as their left-lean becomes more pronounced daily. It’s what happens when you put lawyers in charge.
I actually thought it was a fair interview. She always plays devil’s advocate. I think she needed to ask the tough questions, instead of being a Hannity type cheerleader. I mean every poll has a huge majority saying it was a mistake to enter Iraq. And here is the guy who orchestrated it, claiming that Obama is always wrong (which he is). She sort of put him on trial, and allowed him to answer the tough questions. She was respectful, and at the end got into pointing out how Biden claimed Iraq’s success was Obama’s achievement, and how Obama blew it with the status of force issue.
She beats up on both sides equally.
I suppose we’ll never fully know all the “real” reasons Bush felt it was necessary to stick troops on the ground.
According to wiki leaks - Iraq did attempt to purchase yellow cake (contradicting Plame’s hubby)
I’m old enough to remember when Gore tried to appear macho & accuse Bush 41 of not finishing the job & ousting Sadaam.
Sometimes I wonder if there’s something to the theory W was taking care of unfinished business.
She didn't lose her mind. In asking devil's advocate questions, she was acting as an effective interviewer--and the Cheneys rose to the occasion in their responses.
If I knew then what I know now I would feel differently about it. I suspect plenty of people would.
Actually, I think all of this - the second Iraq war and the ensuing deaths of thousands of Americans - can be laid at the feet of George Herbert Walker Bush.
In Desert Storm, this country and the coalition he assembled utterly routed the Iraqis from Kuwait (later, deeply into IRAQ - to the outskirts of Baghdad, even.)
Accounts of the two (or three?) F15s that massacred an entire column of fleeing Iraqis (booty and plunderings accompanying) are legendary.
Bush (1) had the power to apprehend and contain Iraq’s Hussein in his hands. Instead, he listened to a lilly-livered RINO Secretary of State (Powell) who was just in the beginnings of his own insurgency toward this government masquerading as concern for the optics of the “Highway of Death”, and Bush (1) stopped dead cold short of the prize that could have saved several thousand soldiers’ lives a decade later.
She’s interviewing for a slot on CNN —
Exactly. You attack a country, but leave the leader in power, he will try to eventually exact revenge.
“I never thought boots on the ground in Iraq was a good idea.”
Agreed. To the extent military action needed to be taken, bomb them to smithereens. Then get out and stay out.
Another lie was “the Iraqis will pay for it with their oil revenue.” Let them build their own schools, roads, hospitals, water plants, etc., etc. But, of course, as always, the American taxpayers got stuck with the hundreds of billions of dollars of bills so that we could “win their hearts and minds.”
F fox,Megan Kelly, Brit Hume etc...
Curious. Why would she do that? Viewership there would be down several fold.
What got her where she is today is hard driving logical and reasoned thought, argument and determination in the face of illogical and hysterical progressivism.
I don’t see where this would buy her anything except money.
I agree with you...Megyn Kelly did the right thing....she set-up Cheney and then quietly let him respond in total....which he and his daughter did brillantly!!!!
Ask the Looney Tunes questions the left always spews and let him annihilate it.
Saddam's violations of UN Security Council provisions, that led to the UN backing the US/allied invasion on 2003, were not just about WMD
Although the WMD assessments came from the UN inspectors themselves who were increasingly blocked by Saddam from inspections - yet another violation of UN security council provisions (why?) - and most foreign intel services, not just the US community
Russia itself right after 9-11 warned Pres Bush that another terror attack was planned from Iraq - maybe disinformation (if so why? since the Russians had some in country advisors and control over Iraqi WMD which was reported being convoyed by Russians under diplomatic protection out of Iraq and into Syria, just before the 2003 invasion); the Russian warning added to the information Bush had about follow-on threats in the first 30-90 days after 911
You may disagree with Pres Bush's case
But you can't say you didn't understand it unless you didn't try
The WMD argument is a legitimate Bush gripe, no matter how you look at it. We went into Iraq with a primary goal being the removal of Saddam’s WMD’s. It turned out there were no WMD’s in Iraq, and we were all misled by bad intelligence.
Even if Saddam somehow succeeded in smuggling them out of the country, as you seem to think is the case, then it’s even more disastrous for the Bush Administration; not only did Bush and Cheney fail to destroy the WMD’s but they were hoodwinked into believing there were no WMD’s when they had in fact fallen into the hands of other Muslims.
I saw the interview and I thought that Megyn was tough but fair with Mr. Cheney and Liz. She asked the tough questions, but allowed him the chance to answer them. What more can we ask? Don’t we criticize the leftist reporters for not asking the tough questions to people like Obama and his cronies. Remember, we’re on the right side here. All we should ask for is a fair opportunity to defend ourselves which both Cheneys did very well at.
Unlike when I saw Erin Burnett on CNN interviewing Paul Bremmer taking the Obama administrations side while interrogating him. They had a split screen on and you could see her smirk as she’s listening to his answers, then constantly interrupting him. That’s what we should be outraged about, not Megyn Kelley’s tough but fair questions.
“For the life of me, I cant understand why Bush thought it was necessary when ...”
Like any war, it is called geography. One of the major issues in the region was intelligence and reaching the enemy. Remember this, we were very hampered with fly zones in the ME. GWB gave us infrastructure in the ME, airfields, bases, hospitals, etc. Saddam HUSSEIN rolled out the red carpet with his international defiance, why not take the opportunity. I think we are seeing right now how important OWNING GEOGRAPHY is, unfortunately because of Obama’s lack of warrior intellect, we have lost everything in the ME and we will be revisited someday on our shores. Leaving Iraq will prove to be the beginning of the next deadly terrorist attack in the US.
Megyn Kelly is using Roger Ailes’ , (FOX’s CEO), “Be the Devil’s advocate” definition of “Fair and Balanced” questioning.
Top practitioners of this don’t-forget-the-obsolete-Liberals-point-of-view “Fair and Balanced” method are as follows:
# 1. Neil Cavoto
# 2. Bill O’Reilley
# 3. Megyn Kelley.
Rarely do any of these three pseudo journalists have guests with none-of-the-above Conservative opinions allowed to appear on their shows.
These three “Shows” are a notch above MSNBC Shows.
Note to Roger Ailes:
WE KNOW WHAT THE LIBERAL AND GOP-E POINTS OF VIEW ARE, SO STOP TELLING AND THUS PROMOTING THEIR HARMFUL IDEAS!
The kind of thoughtful commentary that originally brought me to FR.
and if Bush/Cheney had done nothing-—just sat on the report from Clinton holdover CIA head that told them Iraq had WMD’s, Clinton stated it also.............if Bush had done nothing could still hear the hue and cry from the left about the “soft” response.
My impression as well.
+1 and ditto on the points.
Bush 41 went into Iraq thinking he could stabilize the region and thus oil supply and oil prices.
Bush 43 went into Iraq to get even with saddam hussein for
making Bush 41 look bad.
IMHO, the net result now will be the US begging Iran to take control of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran will not stop. A nuclear Iran eventually will expand wherever they want.
All that is happening now is just a smoke screen to give Iran time to build up their nuclear arsenal.
Liberals seem content to quibble over whether Saddam was “attempting to purchase yellowcake” and ignoring or belittling the fact that Saddam had amassed over 500 tons of yellowcake which was shipped to Canada in 2005 after the US invasion, when it was confirmed, discovered, secured and removed from Tuwaitha
How did Cheney get it wrong? Bush/Cheney said there was al-Qaeda in Iraq. Correct. They said there were WMDs there. Correct (550 TONS of uranium was removed in 2007-—without any news fanfare). Just about the only thing they got wrong was not breaking up Iraq into three independent provinces, Kurdistan, Shiaa-ville, and central Iraq.
Exactly right! She followed that interview with a Glenn Beck interview, showing actual video from his 2011 predictions about what would take place in the Mideast in the near future and how he was mocked on MSNBC, CNN and others at the time for his insight. It is happening exactly as he predicted..He looks like a prophet and those media people look like fools. Meghan is the best thing on any network or cable outlet right now. She gets at the truth as best she can and does a darn good job of it. She is smart and assertive and I believe she is doing her best to get the truth to the American people.
“6. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, other than Saddam celebrating it’
To believe that you have to be too ignorant to know the 9/11 attack was an attack against the economy and the 9/11 attack was preceded by an orchestrated recession which was directly related to the Oil for Food Program and the smuggling of Iraqi oil driving the price of oil so low it created a worldwide recession.
The 9/11 attack was a 1-2 punch. Orchestrate a recession then attack the economic center.
SH even made a comment a few month before 9/11 something to the effect “soon America will be hit in it’s sore arm” meaning the economy.
SH played a big part in the preparations for the 9/11 attack.
The crew of this AC-130A Spectre gunship, named Azrael (Azrael, in the Koran, is the angel of death who severs the soul from the body) displayed courage and heroism during the closing hours of Operation Desert Storm. On Feb. 26, 1991, Coalition ground forces were driving the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Azrael was sent to the Al Jahra highway between Kuwait City and Basrah, Iraq, to intercept the convoys of tanks, trucks, buses and cars fleeing the battle. Facing numerous enemy batteries of SA-6 and SA-8 surface-to-air missiles, and 37mm and 57mm radar-guided anti-aircraft artillery, the crew attacked the enemy skillfully, inflicting significant damage on the convoys. The crew's heroic efforts left much of the enemy's equipment destroyed or unserviceable, contributing to the defeat of the Iraqi forces. On Feb. 28, 1991, Iraq agreed to a cease-fire. The aircraft on display was assigned to the 919th Special Operations Wing and was retired to the museum in October 1995.
Bush and Cheney will be vindicated. Here’s how, Obama will do nothing and the Middle East will explode, gasoline will be $20 a gallon and people in the Northeast will not be able to heat their homes.
Then, people will wake up to the fact that oil runs the world and America does not have an energy policy, in fact we are outlawing coal, preventing much offshore drilling, failing to open ANWR, no Keystone pipeline, no new refineries, limited fracking, etc.
I think you mean more Yellowcake. Iraq under Sadam Hussein already had 550 tons, which was subsequently bought by and shipped, to Canada. Yellow cake to Canada
While you at it, don’t forget to add our monkey eared commander in chief, bozo!!!!!!!!!