MEET LIZ CHENEY: MEDIA HO

During the Bush years – come on you remember those long, loooonnnng Bush years – chances are you heard the name Mary Cheney a few times. The irony of the ultra-conservative Vice-President of the United States fathering a gay daughter was so delicious. Less visible was her older sister, Elizabeth. That’s odd, since “Liz” held high-ranking positions in the state department throughout the Bush years. That is, except for a break in 2004 when she interrupted her duties to work on her father’s re-election campaign. It was Liz’s job to gather the female vote, and by all accounts she did a stellar job. Still, if you ask the average American voter about Dick Cheney’s daughter, you’re likely to hear about Mary. Liz perfected the art of anonymity.

So, it begs the question: Why is Liz Cheney suddenly all over the airwaves, Internet news and information sites, and print publications? Her non-stop interviews running parallel with her father’s inexplicable media mongering is slightly suspect. Sometimes they even appear together and their clothing seems oddly color coordinated. It's slightly creepy. If I had the opportunity to ask Ms. Liz one question, I would just ask “Liz, what is it you want?” Really. What does Liz Cheney want from all of this media exposure? I mean there are already enough talking heads and pundits critiquing and countering every word the President says. The anti-Obama machine is oiled and running, and Liz has not come forward with anything new or revelatory. Even with her impressive credentials and substantial background in matters of State, Mr. & Mrs. America know very little of her and are not likely to offer her their full attention. So…what is Liz Cheney's motive with all of this sudden, chatty media exposure?

Liz is clearly (painfully?) her father’s daughter, as evidenced by some of the positions she espouses on the issues. On waterboarding, Liz says it is not torture; that current administration officials should assess whether the techniques used were effective in gathering intelligence information. The problem with this argument, which she is parroting from umpteen conservative pundits and columnists, is that it negates any other methods of gathering information. Liz, et al, never consider a less neanderthal approach. Also like some of her counterparts, Liz interrupts a lot and has little tolerance for viewpoints other than hers…and dad’s. Watch:

What Liz Cheney was not counting on when she embarked on her current media blitz was the intense scrutiny under which she would operate. It has become a favorite pastime/obsession with some media types to monitor every point she makes. Jason Linkins, who you may have read about here the other day in “Are You The Future of Journalism,” poked so many holes in Liz’s recent verbal spar with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, that it seems the empress has no clothes. Watch the exchange, and then click here to read Linkins’ rebuttal:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If Liz Cheney wants to enter the national conversation, for whatever reasons or with whatever agenda she has, I say, 'Come on down,' Liz. But we citizens have a few ground rules and I’m more than a little surprised that you didn’t know about them. I just think I better lay them out for you:

1. When you commit to an interview during which you’re going to talk about what has or hasn’t been said publicly by officials, make sure you know what has or hasn’t been said by public officials. Otherwise, we citizens have a name for that: “Rewriting History.”
2. An interview is a con – ver – sa – tion. Both people get to speak, and in the best of times both people get to complete sentences before the other person speaks.
3. Experienced journalists like those with whom you have spoken lately, do their homework. We are in the information business. It is what we do. If we convey inaccurate information, it compromises our credibility. So, you may want to think twice before you condescend to the questioner. Chances are, we’re not saying something we haven’t checked, double-checked and re-checked before we say it. Can you say the same about yourself? Liz? Come on now….can you?

Liz Cheney appears to be a very self-assured woman. She expresses herself earnestly and assertively. She just seems to have forsaken the key element to undertaking a media tour that relies on knowledge of the issues – preparation. And she seems to have forgotten that the manner in which you earnestly assert yourself has a lot to do with how it is received by the masses. Say it with a sincere commitment to the truth and we’re probably listening, Liz. But say it with nothing more or less than disdain for those who don’t share your worldview, and we’re tuning out.

Cheney, Part II is getting on our collective nerves. And once that happens, we can’t really remember what the hell she said.

SAY WHAT? A Week of Legislators' Gaffes

What is it with powerful legislators who simply do not know when to shut up? This past week or so has been rife with regretful comments from some of our highest profile government elite. Some examples:

Vice President Joe Biden: At the recent Washington Gridiron Dinner, Biden (below, right) inexplicably revealed that under the Vice-Presidential residence at the Naval Observatory is a secure bunker where his predecessor, Dick, was sent for safety during the 9/11 debacle. What on earth would possess a guy with Biden’s decades of experience and awareness of the critical importance of secrecy about such things to let this out? A few too many martinis, perhaps? According to the New York Post, not only did the VP reveal the location, he rambled on with a detailed description of the place. It begs the question: Now that the entire world knows of this “undisclosed location,” where would Biden go in the event of another national security crisis? I’m thinking a suite at the Hay Adams Hotel perhaps?

Nancy Pelosi (below - illustration by Darrow, New York Magazine) has never been the darling of a majority of Democrats, but her latest foot in mouth moment really seals the deal for some of us. As to whether the CIA revealed to her and other members of Congress the details of alleged waterboarding used on accused terrorists, Pelosi said, “They mislead us all the time.” When pressed further about whether she means that the CIA lies to her, the Speaker of the House said, “Yes.” Now, here we have the person who is second in line for the Presidency of the United States, alienating the country’s highest level civilian intelligence agency. One wonders what would happen if Madame Speaker was suddenly elevated to the Presidency during a national security crisis, and fully unable to collaborate with the country’s highest level security organization. Did she just not consider that, or is it possible Pelosi is simply not the right person for her current position? Legislators on both sides of the aisle are now asking that exact question.

David Carney is a political strategist in the employ of Texas Governor Rick Perry. This week, Carney said the GOP should not “open itself up like a whorehouse” to new voters. David, David, David….don’t say “GOP” and “whorehouse” in the same breath, especially when you’re already working for a guy who has stirred up enough controversy for a lifetime with his own Texas secession from the U.S. comments. By mid-week, reaction to the thoughtless gaffe ranged from alluding to “the best little whorehouse in Texas,” to the more serious response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s camp. Hutchinson (pictured above, right, alongside Perry) reportedly has her eye on the Governor’s seat. Perry & Co. may have just given her an unexpected boost.

I find it interesting that all of these individuals are of a generation that did not really grow up in the world of instant digital communication. It seems that so many people born before or during the mid-20th century still don’t get it: If you are a high profile person and you say something stupid, it travels the entire globe in a millisecond. The media is now necessarily predatory because of constantly increasing competition and the need to find the perfect sound bite to attract the consumer’s attention. A Speaker of the House who outrightly criticizes a national security agency does so at her own career peril. A Vice-President who does not understand the need for confidentiality does so at his own personal peril, and a Governor who cannot reign in his own strategists may do so at the expense of his own political future.

GREAT MOMENTS IN TV: VENTURA vs. HASSELBACK

What happens when former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura debates torture with neocon TV host Elisabeth Hasselback? Ventura, who has been waterboarded, appeared this morning on ABC's "The View." Interesting to hear from a guy who knows from where he speaks, as opposed to Hasselback who...well...not so much. This clip is priceless, especially Ventura's last line:

OF TORTURE AND CONSEQUENCES

I am one of those people who annoyingly and too frequently reminds people I know that life is a gift. So, in those rare moments in your life when someone you deeply care about talks of ending it all, or how much easier it would be to just “check out,” there I am, repeating my sometimes unwelcome mantra, “Life is a gift.”

That being said, you might guess how I feel about the latest debate over torture. I want to get ahold of torture proponents and remind them of a little something called the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the United Nations in 1984. Prior to that, in 1975, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Oh, and way before all that, in 1948, the U.N. enacted the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which clearly stated ‘”No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Not only did all of this take place, but each of these instruments had safeguards in place that were supposed to ensure that any possible violations would be avoided.

So, tell me, what happened that a 21st century President of the United States, George W. Bush, found it permissible to allow simulated drowning (“waterboarding”) on his watch? And how is it that the self-proclaimed holiest among us, white evangelicals and Roman Catholics say in majority that torture can “sometimes” or “often” be justified? And tell me, when did life and death issues become fodder for glib, often uninformed talking heads on cable television, such as Sean Hannity and Keith Olberman? Watch this:



Further, has everybody conveniently forgotten about the U.S. Code? That’s the set of permanent U.S. Federal laws. I want to point out Title 18 of the Code: “Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

Listen, even if none of the above has any meaning to you, consider this: Even with its internationally tainted image, the United States is still looked upon as the epicenter of high civilization. If individuals at the highest levels of the American government demonstrate tolerance for something as uncivilized and inhumane as torture of human beings, will nations of lesser moral fiber and far lesser development not follow suit? If the U.S. does it, well it must be the thing to do, right? Irreversible precedents are being set here. Doesn’t anybody get that? Didn’t George W. Bush (right), Dick Cheney and Condaleeza Rice get that?

I could go on and on about how inhumane, unethical and primitive torture is. I could try to pull your heartstrings by reminding you that all of those individuals who have been tortured are human beings with somebody somewhere who loves them. I could try to scare you by reminding you that once we exercise leniency in the act of torturing other human beings, we open ourselves up to such an act if and when the global tables are turned on us. Instead, I think I’ll just appeal to your basic intelligence and sense of logic: If a person believes he or she is going to die as you simulate drowning on their person, isn’t it likely that they’ll say anything you want them to say? Even Olberman said that in his interview in the video you saw above. How accurate can information be when you are simply coercing someone to say what you want them to say by threatening their life? Aside from how disgusting the act itself is, the concept is idiotic.
So, how widespread is the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques? That is what proponents of acts such as waterboarding call torture. Does it go way, way beyond Gitmo? Did Bush, Cheney, Condy, (left) et. al. cavalierly endorse the use of barbaric methods to get information that is probably not worth a damn anyway? Spain and the U.K. seem to think they did. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concurs.

If torture was not okay in Nazi German, or in Rwanda, or in more than 150 countries in which Amnesty International has documented instances or torture, is it acceptable when the most highly civilized society in the world does it? I think not. It seems unfathomable that there is even debate about the use of torture. If the gracious and poised Ms. Rice condoned the use of “enhanced interrogation,” she must be held accountable. If the Prince of Darkness, Dick Cheney (right) encouraged the infliction of pain and suffering, even against terrorists, he likely disobeyed the law and should be punished. And since the buck clearly stopped at the desk of George W. Bush, it needs to be fully investigated, including interrogation of the former President, and ultimately appropriate punishment.