Skip to comments.Liz Cheney Conducts a Clinic on How to Destroy Liberal Arguments
Posted on 05/22/2009 3:22:07 PM PDT by COBOL2Java
RUSH: I want you to hear Liz Cheney. We have her on Good Morning America today. She was on MSNBC this morning and CNN last night. The first one is Good Morning America. The West Wing writer, Lawrence O'Donnell, was frothing at the mouth yesterday over Dick Cheney's speech. He and the former deputy assistant secretary of state for near-eastern affairs, Liz Cheney, were discussing torture on Good Morning America. Lawrence O'Donnell said -- talking about waterboarding here -- "It is torture. This government's prosecuted people in the past for doing exactly this, but Dick Cheney believes it's not torture and that's essential to his position. If it was effective, why didn't they use it on the 500 people that Bush-Cheney released from Guantanamo, 75 of whom we know now have gone back into the terrorism business. That was a failure of the Bush-Cheney administration to keep America safe by processing people correctly at Guantanamo. Is that accurate?"
RUSH: That's Liz Cheney demolishing a popular left-wing liberal, Lawrence O'Donnell. I mean, I don't even need to translate what she said. It's just priceless. It is a blueprint for how all Republicans ought to not be on defense, not be nervous. Be confident of the things they believe in and have done policy-wise, and don't accept the BS premises put forth by liberals. I do want to expand on something. She talked about Attorney General Holder having a hard time explaining exactly what the legal definition is of waterboarding. This was actually quite good. It was a hearing this week. I think it was this week. It might have been last week.
LIZ: Let me go through all of the inaccuracies in what you've just said. First of all the question of whether or not enhanced interrogation is "torture" has been answered and it's been answered legally and it's not that Cheney or President Bush or anybody else "believed" it to be torture. The justice department of the United States --
LIZ: Lawrence, I let you go.
O'DONNELL: Are you afraid of waterboarding, Liz?
LIZ: No. Waterboarding is not torture.
O'DONNELL: (pompous laugh)
LIZ: You know what, though? I would refer you to Attorney General Holder's testimony --
O'DONNELL: Why has this country prosecuted people for waterboarding?
O'DONNELL: Why did we do that?
LIZ: Because they did a number of other things in addition to waterboarding. Attorney General Holder had a hard time explaining exactly what the legal definition is of waterboarding that would make it torture. We've done it to our own people. Secondly, your argument about why didn't we do it to 500 other people proves our point. It was used in three cases when we had terrorists who had information about potential attacks on the United States of America. So the notion that somehow, you know, we should have waterboarded everybody? I'm surprised that that's a position you've taken.
Louie Gohmert was questioning him and one other member of Congress. The name escapes me. Gohmert's a former appellate judge, and they zeroed in on Holder. Holder was destroyed in a Q&A about waterboarding and "torture" in general. It boiled down to a position that the administration has taken -- and that, by the way, is legal doctrine. It is a legal doctrine that was evolved during the Bush administration. The Obama administration has adopted it and continues to use it, and that is it can't be torture if the interrogators do not intend torture. If they're waterboarding somebody, for example, and they don't intend permanent harm or physical harm that has any lasting effect -- psychological, whatever -- if they do it then there's no torture. They pointed out to Holder that Navy SEALs go through it as training.
A lot of military people go through it as training for if they are captured. And how to resist it. And so they asked him, "Are you saying we're torturing our own people?" And Holder had said, "No, because when we waterboard SEALs we're not intending to harm 'em." Well, we weren't intending to harm Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We were trying to get information from him! We weren't trying to harm him. So Holder was totally defeated on the whole notion of torture. This was not reported in the Drive-By Media. Lawrence O'Donnell has no clue that it happened. He has no clue that Obama's own attorney general has been defeated demonstrably on the whole concept of waterboarding being torture. But Liz Cheney knew, and so she hit O'Donnell with it. So the whole notion that waterboarding is torture is not even an official legal position of the Obama administration. It may be a political statement that he makes, you know, he says one thing, does another. Constantly. Like yesterday in that speech, he said, "I don't want to litigate the past eight years," and then the rest of the speech of is berating the past eight years. Well, anybody can do that. I wonder if I could get away with that. "Folks, I don't want to spend the show today talking about Barack Obama. I really want to move forward. I don't want to mention Obama, and then spend the rest of the show talking about Obama. I wonder if I would be called a hypocrite? Barack Obama said yesterday, "I don't care about the last eight years. I don't want to litigate whatever happened. I want to move forward."
And then he went backwards and ripped the Bush administration every opportunity he got, and nobody calls him on it. So all of these robot spokesman like O'Donnell go out there and repeat the political position of waterboarding that Obama repeats with no knowledge -- or if they have knowledge they selectively ignore it -- of the legal position this administration's taken on waterboarding, which it is not torture. Liz Cheney just demolished O'Donnell on this. I mean, he started interrupting her trying to humiliate her with such questions as, "Are you afraid to call it waterboarding, Liz?" "No, no, no. I'm not afraid," and in the last half of the bite you don't hear him pipe up with anything. Let's move on to MSNBC to Scarborough's show today, and they have a discussion of "torture." This was Liz Cheney with CNBC's Donny Deutsch who came to broadcasting from the world of advertising. And Donny Deutsch, in typical uninformed, ignorant liberal arrogance, says, "Either your dad's lying or the president's lying. Who's lying?"
RUSH: See, the point of this is that Deutsch and MSNBC and Obama don't care about ending the debate. They want to politicize everything so that they can argue and discuss it politically which means constantly criticize Republicans -- Cheney particularly here -- nd what Liz Cheney is pointing out, "Look, Obama can settle this argument. Obama can settle it by releasing the memos my dad says he saw and if those modems don't say what my dad says he saw, then guess what? My dad's going to be perceived as wrong. But if those memos do say what my dad says then Obama is going to be the one that's misrepresenting things. But Donny, don't argue with me! Just have Obama release the memos.
LIZ: Well, the president could, you know, resolve this this morning and --
DEUTSCH: No! No! No! No! But he came out and he said, "I have looked at those intelligent reports."
LIZ: Well, I think actually what he said was I've seen "the" intelligence reports. So it's not clear to me he was actually referring to the same things my dad was but --
DEUTSCH: Don't you think at this point --
LIZ -- let me finish the answer on this, Donny.
DEUTSCH: -- he would have seen...?
LIZ: No, no.
DEUTSCH: This is a critical report!
LIZ: I'm sure --
DEUTSCH: He would have seen one way or the other?
LIZ: I'm sure he has at this point.
LIZ: If you release the memos, then you and I don't have to have this argument about who's telling the truth. We could all look at it for ourselves, and that's where I think, you know, the administration's got a real problem. Because they haven't been able to explain to the American people why they're willing to release information that talks about how people were interrogated without putting out the information that shows what we gained from those interrogations.
"The truth is there. It's the White House that's preventing us from knowing it." Now, she's got guts and courage here. (chuckling) I was her dinner partner one night out in Wyoming at a dinner party. It was a social thing; it was a political thing. But as you can expect political things ended up being discussed. And she was on fire. This woman is committed. She is informed. She is a warrior, a warriorette on this stuff. It's great that she's out doing this now. Somebody made a point today, I forget who, that we've had all these presidential children, and the sons of presidents, you know, are dime a dozen. They've come and gone, the daughters and so forth, and they've always held out potential.
But Liz Cheney happens to be the most worthwhile in terms of political asset to her father. She's vocal, intelligent, and effective. This is so breathtaking to watch because it is a seminar on how any Republican appearing on any of these shows with any of these bumble-head liberals with handle 'em. Two more. Last night on Anderson Cooper 180, he said, "There are techniques which have been around. The Nazis used them, the Khmer Rouge used them, the North Koreans used them. So it's not as if terrorists were unfamiliar with these techniques. If they wanted to train for them -- and I'm not sure you really can train for torture or enhanced interrogation..."
RUSH: That's another excellent point. She points out, first, that his premise is wrong. "Let me set you straight here, Anderson." She doesn't say this but what we all know is: "Anderson, you're part of groupthink. You're part of the liberal conventional wisdom, and that's all you know. As a modern day journalist, Anderson you're a walking cliche. Let me correct the premise of your question," and then she says, "Even though Obama has reserved for himself the right to use these techniques, we still don't know that he will" because of the way he's politicized the issue. By the way, the member of Congress that was questioning Holder in addition to Louie Gohmert was Dan Lundgren, the former attorney general from California. It was a tag-team extraordinaire. When Gohmert called Holder on the contradictions that he was explaining about intent -- what's torture, what's not -- he was really twisted in knots.
LIZ: I would question the premise here. The legal memos are very clear, and this was a very carefully designed program, and it was a program that the CIA designed, that they had the lawyers look at to make sure that the line that divided sort of rough treatment from torture wouldn't be crossed. What the president has done is ensure that no future president can use any of these techniques. So that's a big step, and that's a step that I think really does endanger the country -- and, frankly, if the president himself in the future is faced with a ticking time bomb scenario, it's not clear to me, you know, what exactly he will do even these reserved to himself the light to take action like these.
Holder tried to change the legal definition of torture in the middle of the interview or the interrogation of... Yeah, "the interrogation." We'll call it that. It was a hearing. But they made mincemeat of him. It's not hard to make mincemeat of liberals. All you've gotta do is don't cop to an attitude that they're better than everybody, or that you don't have a chance against them or they're all going to gang up on you because, folks, they're not grounded in any substance whatsoever. Liberalism is itself in quicksand. There is no truth behind it. Liberalism is a series of mirages and images and PR -- and the truth does not need a majority to win, as Liz Cheney is illustrating. She's going on these programs solo, ganged up on by at least two and maybe more people who oppose her and she's wiping them out with something as simply as the truth. She often starts by refusing to debate their cliched, fallacious premises. Here's another example. One more before we go to the break. Anderson Cooper: "More than 100 people are known to have died in US custody, some that were ruled a homicide. If these were tightly controlled things, how come so many people are murdered in US custody?"
LIZ: Anderson, I think that your question is highly irresponsible.RUSH: Anderson Cooper's there saying, "What's my next question?" Yeah, he's trying to probably figure out what "conflate" means and so forth. But what she's talking about here, he asked this loaded question, a hundred people died in US custody. And what he's implying is it happened because we waterboarded them or we tortured them. She said, "No, no, no. Your question is fallacious. The premise is irresponsible -- and whenever these kinds of things happen we have prosecuted." All you've gotta... We even prosecute the innocent, thanks to Jack Murtha. The Marines in Haditha. Congratulations, Liz Cheney, showing the way.
LIZ: Because you are contemplating things that aren't conflated. When somebody dies or is "murdered" in US custody then we are a great nation and we take the people who are responsible and we put them on trial as you've seen happen throughout the last eight years. That is not the enhanced interrogation program, and to somehow suggest that those two to things are the same I think willfully conflates something and ends up in a situation where we aren't able to take a truthful look at the last eight years as we go forward, because we are muddying the waters about what really happened.
She’s been great. I enjoy watching her. I wish other GOP representatives that go on liberal shows were as prepared and coherent as her.
Now there is a potential GOP candidate! I hope she runs for some office somewhere.
I can't believe the Dims are allowing the first big debate in this administration to be over national security, our high ground. Go Cheneys!
So, Congress says it is not torture. Likewise, no US court has ever ruled that waterboarding is torture. So, Obama's position is that his word is law. Mever mind Congress and the courts. Obama speaks and that's that.
A joy to watch. There are a few who can debate this intelligently but they will not be given the opportunity to engage when the wrong person wins the debate. Invite Liz Cheney? Not anymore, she’ll be crossed off their list.
The question that needs to be asked in response to this bull is....
How many Americans would you consider acceptable losses in the next Terrorist attack?
Anybody else see a pattern in 0bama's behavior here?
I would vote for her in a second...more qualifications than Obama....and quite the smart person. More balls than our Senators and Reps....
I wonder what state Liz considers home? Betcha Wyoming would send another Cheney to Washington.
Oh great, the non-lesbian daughter of the vp, whose administration destroyed the Republican name; the team who “sacrificed free market principles to save the free market” is being touted by Rush.
No, thanks, I’ll keep my eye on Michele Bachman, instead.
Obama kind of painted himself into a corner with his campaign rhetoric. He was a dog chasing a car and he made the mistake of actaully catching it and having to deal with the ensuing consequences.
He said on the stump and even in his post-election speeches that he would end the so-called torture, stop the warrantless wiretapping and close Guantanamo.
So far, he's reaffirmed the warrantless wiretapping and has even expanded it some instances. He hasn't even begun to close Gitmo. And, as Liz Cheney points out, he hasn't even ruled out waterboarding again in the scenario of a ticking time bomb. He probably didn't want to make this his first big debate, but he really didn't leave himself much room for anything else. So far, he's losing IMHO.
You go girl, behind you and your father 100%. Bet.
I think he's losing "big time"!
Not only that, he screwed up his positioning. Zero wanted to be able to blame Bush if we got hit again on his watch, which is why he left Gates and some other bushies in place, IMHO. Now, with his very public spew about Gitmo and "torture" and separating himself very publicly from Cheney the public will blame him for another attack. Even though, as you point out, he's continued many of the same policies! Slick Willie never played a hand this poorly.
But he's really caught. He lied to the American people and claimed to be a moderate to get elected, but in the primaries convinced the moonbats he's one of them. Whichever group he appeases, he's screwed with the other!
I love it when a Conservatives doesn’t simply answer stupid, pointed questions but rather goes after the Liberal interviewer for asking stupid, pointed questions. Atta girl Liz!
I propose we go the way of Professional Sports and recruit and sign the best representative we can find that will defend and represent our interest.
Hire and Fire at Will, Baby!
I notice that two of the most prominent young conservatives are women. Take that rats.
An absolute clinic on how to go on the offensive against the liberal pressholes.
Virgina. She lives in Mclean VA where the former VP has also bought a property and I think spends most of his time.
Well, she has an advantage. She’s her mother all over again, and maybe fierier. Her mom is more ironic. A perfect blend of the two parents.
Yes, he has screwed up his positioning, another attack is now his fault.
The Cheney team turned the tables on him so smoothly I’ll bet BHO is still scatching his head over how it happened.
She’s the woman everyone here wants Palin to be. Brilliant.
I could be mistaken, but I believe she ran for Congress?
Did the MSM hold a gun to Bush and Cheney and make them do this:
"We now are burdened with a President who signed every spending bill Congress sent to him until just after re-election to his second term.
He pushed a Medicare Prescription Plan to add to an entitlement program that is rapidly running out of funding.
He signed Teddy Kennedys No Child Left Behind program to transfer control of the nations education system to the federal government despite a total lack of Constitutional authority.
He has ignored our nations porous southern border with Mexico that allows a million more illegal immigrants to enter America every year. He wont even pardon two border guards jailed by a zealous U.S. district attorney for the alleged crime of shooting an admitted drug smuggler. [Bush finally commuted the sentences of Ramos and Compean the last day in office at the same time a massive campaign was waged by citizens demanding that they be pardoned.]
He signed a misnamed energy bill that mandates the use of corn to produce thousands of gallons of ethanol, a fuel additive that actually reduces mileage while adding to the cost of gasoline. This has started a cascade of food shortages worldwide, needlessly driving up the cost.
He took the nation to war in Iraq and then sat back as it was disastrously mismanaged for years. He will pass it along to whoever replaces him.
And now he proposes that the U.S. burden its economy with a program that has failed throughout Europe to curb emissions and which exempts both China and India. Even if CO2 was a problemwhich it is notwhy would any rational person expect that limiting our emissions would have any effect on the atmosphere? Why add billions to the cost of doing business in America?
There is a reason the Presidents approval ratings are at a new low and may yet surpass those of the unlamented Jimmy Carter. He cannot be trusted and he likely to do more harm before he leaves office."
As predicted, right before exiting stage left, Bush said, "I had to sacrifice free market principles in order to save the free market" as he began the Wall Street bailout that has been completely embraced by the Marxist usurper.
The only thing that Cheney ever publicly disagreed with Bush on was gay marriage:
"Vice President Dick Cheney came out in support of gay marriage at a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa. When the vice president was asked what he thought about homosexual marriages, Cheney replied, "My general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. The question that comes up with respect to the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by the government, if you will, to the particular relationship?"