Is there a Method to Liz Cheney's Madness?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Is there a Method to Liz Cheney's Madness?

Many observers have found Liz and Dick Cheney's fervent crusade to ensure that President Obama define terrorists as "enemy combatants," and the fight against terrorism as a "war" on terrorism quite curious. Why would a former vice president break the long established tradition of fading into the woodwork to engage in a silly debate over semantics? Now we also have his daughter, Liz Cheney, attacking standards set down by the United States Constitution guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law. Liz Cheney has now branded attorneys who defended 'alleged terrorists' the "Al Qaeda 7," and she's calling the United States Department of Justice - that's simply carrying out the prescription set down by the United States Constitution - "The Department of Jihad." Could there possibly be a reasonable explanation behind such radical behavior? I think there is.

The Cheneys are engaged in a preemptive strike against the Obama administration in general, and the Justice Department in particular, in order to stir up public opinion against the prospect that the Obama administration will finally decide to prosecute Dick Cheney for war crimes - as the rule of law demands. They're busily laying the groundwork to incite insurrection across this country to counter the application of the rule of law.

While the GOP is atrocious when it comes to governance, they're absolute geniuses when it comes to stirring up their base for war - and in this case, they're preparing the nation for an all out internal conflict. One can hear it in every speech as they sprinkle little gems like 'secession', 'socialist', and 'government takeover' into the political dialogue. Thus, the threat that they pose to America makes Al Qaeda pale in comparison.

They started exactly one month after President Obama entered office when on February 21, 2009, the New York Post published a cartoon portraying President Obama as a monkey being shot by the police. There was a lot of subliminal messaging in that cartoon. True to their usual method of operation, they began to dehumanized the enemy, just like they did Saddam, by portraying the enemy - President Obama in this case - as a monkey. They then show the police shooting the president in order to prevent him from pursuing what they consider an unpopular initiative. By showing the police - respected authority figures - shooting the president, that's intended to lend legitimacy to the action.

I immediately recognized what was afoot, and I pointed it out in my article, The Assassination Cartoon:

"That cartoon literally sent a message out to every deadbeat, and bigoted loser in the country that they can finally make something of themselves. They can finally find purpose in their previously miserable and lackluster lives by assassinating the President of the United States. Thus, what the New York Post is calling a meaningless joke is actually a clarion call to every bigoted fool in the United States. It says that there are people in this country who will consider you a hero if you bring violence against the president–and they know it. Can you imagine the hue and cry coming from Republicans if the New York Times had run a cartoon depicting the assassination of Ronald Reagan?"

I also pointed out that -

"We’ve had enough experience with neo-cons and radical conservatives where anyone with even an ounce of common sense recognizes that nothing is a joke with them–especially when they’re out of power. They’re dead serious, and they’re desperate. Conservative Republicans know better than anyone that considering their atrocious eight years of governance, combined with President Obama’s competence and responsible statesmanship, that the Republican Party faces an extremely bleak future. So they’ve gone to plan B, to eliminate Obama at all cost, and by any means necessary. As ugly as it seems, anyone who doesn’t recognize that reality has blinders on.

"Look at the facts. Their proven method of operation is to demonize, dehumanize, then eliminate. When the neo-cons decided to exploit Iraqi resources instead of going after Osama, as was the intent of the American people, they first began to demonize, then dehumanize Saddam Hussein–a former ally--in order to prepare the American people to accept the idea that it was necessary to take him out."

If there was any doubt about my contention, however, it should have been immediately resolved when they trotted out turncoat and perennial loser, Alan Keyes. Keys called into question President Obama's legitimacy as president. He referred to the president as "a radical communist." He went on to say, "He's [Obama] going to destroy this country and we've either got to stop him, or America will cease to exist." He also indicated that since Barack Obama wasn't legitimately the president, if something wasn't done about it we were going to end up in "civil war." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg&feature=player_embedded

Thus, these are people are clearly without limits, and have an absolute disdain for the United States Constitution. They're only concerned with one thing - power, and that's the only thing they respect. So President Obama's inclination to compromise and appeasement is totally lost on them. All appeasement does is give the GOP the breathing room to engage in further calculation and plotting. Their strategy was clearly demonstrated in the healthcare debate. Even after the president allowed them to water down the bill, they voted against it. That's their method of operation. They're not interested it compromise - they want nothing short of complete control.

So when the president signaled Attorney General Holder that "we should look forward, not back," even though the president was obviously ignoring the rule of law to accommodate them, they didn't appreciate that. They didn't say, "Wow, this is a good guy;" they said, "This guy is weak - we're going to run all over him."

Had President Obama followed up on his campaign promise of change, on the other hand, and simply allowed the rule of law to play itself out, his entire base would still be behind him, and the Republican party wouldn't have dared engaged in the obstructionism that they are currently engaged in. First of all, politics as usual wouldn't have flown in such an environment; and secondly, the roots of Bush and Cheney's corruption undoubtedly sink so deep into the Republican party that in response to a DOJ investigation a large percentage of the GOP would be too busy trying to cover their own butts to have time obstruct the president's agenda.

During a recent debate I was having on this issue a gentleman indicated that this was no time to investigate war crimes. "President Obama has to pick his battles." While it is true that it's important for the president to pick his battles wisely, there is no battle more important to the American way of life than protecting the rule of law.

One can only wonder if the gentleman would have taken the same position if one of the charges involved the torture and murder of a member of his own family. I think not.  Thus, the day that America can turn a blind eye to the injustice and murder of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children - including our own troops - is the day this nation ceases to be America, and thus, effectively place us all in jeopardy. How long would it be before the Cheneys decide it's necessary to murder attorneys who represent people they don't like?

This goes beyond a personal or political issue. The fact is, in any democracy, maintaining the rule of law must always take priority over all else. Without the rule of law there can be no democracy, since a democracy is established by the rule of law.

After all, what's the sense of enacting healthcare reform, or any other law, if a precedent has been established that renders the rule of law meaningless?


Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Cheney Certainly Didn't 'Dither' During Vietnam - He Hauled Ass

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Cheney Certainly Didn't 'Dither' During Vietnam - He Hauled Ass

Where is Dick Cheney's shame? And where is the shame of the people who are supposed to be covering him?

Dick Cheney is walking around demanding that we place our troops in harm's way like a veteran who begged for combat, then won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service. The way he's strutting around, lecturing America and saber-rattling for war, one would never know that when the nation called for him to serve, he ran like a weasel on high potency steroids to avoid military service - and the mainstream media is just as gutless for not pointing that out.

What's passing for the press in this country has proven without a doubt, that they've literally degenerated into a group of glorified ambulance chasers. They've been staked out under Tiger woods' toilet seat for the last week trying to get an exclusive on Tiger's sex life.  At the same time, they're completely ignoring the most pertinent news in the nation - a draft dodger and former CEO of a major military/industrial corporation pressuring the president to rush our troops into harm's way.

Why isn't the media holding Dick Cheney accountable for his deplorable hypocrisy? Why aren't they holding Cheney accountable for anything? I can think of several questions that the media should demand that Cheney answer every time he sticks his head out of his undisclosed rat hole.

What were the "other priorities" that he claimed was more important than America when he sought, and received, five (5) deferments from battle when it was his turn to fight? What hardships were those deferments based on? Were they more important than the hardships in the lives of men who responded to the nation's call, then fought and died? Who approved Cheney's deferments, and were they valid?

Was it just a coincident that his daughter and fellow chicken hawk, Liz Cheney, was born virtually nine months to the day after the selective service declared that married men would be called for duty, but married men with children would remain deferred? The rules of deferment was changed on Oct. 26, 1965. Liz was born on July 28, 1966 - nine months and two days later. Cheney got his final deferment Jan. 26, 1966 - because his wife was pregnant. Now there's some sexual prowess worth looking into.

In addition, considering the nation's sacrifice in both lives and treasure, isn't it worth investigating who was involved and what was discussed in Cheney's "secret meeting" prior to the Bush administration taking us to war in Iraq? Who decided to award no-bid contracts before going into Iraq? And who decided what corporations would receive no-bid contracts, and what criteria was that decision based upon? And here's a question that just begs to be asked - didn't they consider it a conflict of interest that Halliburton, the corporation that Vice President headed before entering office, was awarded the largest no-bid contract in Iraq?

The mainstream media also seemed to have been out to lunch regarding the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Isn't that treason? So why was it handled so casually by the press? Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is the very height of treasonous irresponsibility for any citizen, and the fact that it could be done by the Vice President of the United States is simply unfathomable. When that incident took place it should have alerted every citizen of this country that instability reined in the Bush administration and virtually anything was possible - oh, but sounding that alarm is the job of a responsible and diligent fourth estate is it?

We have a very serious problem in this country when citizens have to depend on late-night comedians to put the shenanigans of our government into perspective. Renowned newsman Edward R. Murrow once said that "A citizenry of sheep begets a government of wolves." I wonder what he'd say about a press filled with ostriches with their head in the sand?

Murrow would immediately recognize that even the most informed citizen relies on the press to sound the alarm when government goes astray. The founding fathers depended on that as an important element of keeping America free. That's exactly why the freedom of the press was incorporated into the nation's founding documents. But what passes for the press today has gotten so caught up in the economics, egocentrism, and self-service of our political environment, that they've become next to useless on the issues that really count. They seem to be afraid of angering a demagogue by asking him the most fundamental, and obvious questions.

Even though our troops were dying under the nation's mandate to capture the people responsible for 9/11, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) alleges that the Bush administration purposely allowed Osama Bin Laden to get away so they'd have an excuse to invade Iraq. The congressman said: "That was done by the previous administration intentionally, letting Bin Laden get away. They knew that if they captured Al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion of Iraq." He went on to say, "There's no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military - called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda."

So why isn't all hell breaking loose in the press? Why isn't that all we can hear about on every channel, and the headline of every newspaper? In other words, why isn't it being given the Michael Jackson treatment? Instead, all we can hear on every channel is how many women tiger Woods is allegedly sleeping with, and whether his wife went after him with a putter or a nine iron.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm just as nosey as anyone else about whether or not a billionaire who's the most recognized sports figure in the world can get a girlfriend. But I prefer my national news not being preempted by such frivolity. I can wait to get that information on the Wendy Williams Show (How you doooin', girl?) - and I'm virtually certain that most Americans agree. Well . . . maybe not, but that's grist for another mill.

Edward R. Murrow brought an end to the grip that Sen. Joe McCarthy's hypocrisy had on the nation with just one commentary, and one commentary by Walter Cronkite essentially spelled the beginning of the end of the Vietnam conflict. These journalists provided a valuable service to the American people. But the electronic commentators now on the air are so self-aggrandizing and prop-laden that they lack the dignity and clot necessary to get the attention of the American people - and the few true journalists who are left, are treated like field hands. 

While CNN does make an effort to maintain some semblance of journalistic standards as far as they go, they are just as guilty as the rest of the networks of failing to pursue issues of vital importance to the nation. And I wouldn't even mention Fox in a news context, since they're clearly nothing more than a public relations firm for the Republican Party, but they're significant because their appeal to the very worst within us is what's responsible for dragging down the journalistic standards of the electronic news media as a whole.

A perfect example of that can be seen in the programing of MSNBC. The network has great talent on their staff, but they've lost credibility by allowing themselves to be reduced to spitball fights with Fox in order to gain ratings.

Take Keith Olbermann, for example. He's a great talent, but his talent doesn't come close to matching the size of his ego. When I watch Olbermann I get the feeling that the news is secondary to showing how witty he can be. On the surface Keith's antics may seem harmless enough, until one tries to imagine either Murrow or Cronkite throwing copy at an imaginary window, or quoting people in the news in cartoon-like voices. It's only then that one begins to recognize how far downhill we've come.

Okay, maybe it's just fun and games, but when you play games with serious issues like a politician blatantly lying to the American people about healthcare, or the meaning of torture, or about a competing network purposely misleading the American people, you leave the impression that the offense can't be all that serious, otherwise, you wouldn't be joking about it. So they contribute to the perception that lying and corruption is nothing to become alarmed about - it's just the way the game is played.

So in that regard, their behavior is just as irresponsible and damaging to our society as Fox News.


Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content