I tell you what Liz, when you think we need your father's administration investigated for their lawlessness we'll call it a fair trade. Sam Stein at the HuffPo has more on Cheney's hypocrisy.
There has been no bigger critic of the idea of launching an investigation into the Bush administration's authorization of torture on terrorist suspects than Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
The foreign policy analyst and cable news personality has scoffed at the idea that an independent council would spend time looking into the matter, arguing that it would be crippling to the intelligence community and a waste of time. After all, the harsh interrogation techniques used during the Bush years worked, she says.
Considering how adamantly she's argued this point, it would stand to reason that Cheney would set a high bar with respect to what scandals deserved an investigatory commission. And yet, there she was on Sunday morning, during an appearance on Fox News, demanding that an independent body look into the job offer the Obama White House made to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) to get him out of the Pennsylvania Senate race. Read on...
And Digby reminds us of what we have to look forward to from the Republicans, endless scandal politics and she has some thoughts on Liz Cheney's potential political ambitions that I agree with completely:
Whether they can make anything of this specific charge is unknown. But what it signals is a return to the Clinton Rules and the scandal politics of the past. Regardless of whether or not any particular scandal takes hold, the way this works is by the cut of a thousand deaths.
For instance, perhaps people have forgotten that Bob Barr introduced impeachment proceedings based upon a non-scandal that had nothing to do with the non-scandals of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist templegate, or Monica Lewinsky.
...The idea is to create an atmosphere of corruption and illegality (and not incidentally keep the press overstimulated and frenzied at all times) by constantly insinuating that there is something illegal or unethical about completely normal political behaviors --- and then accuse the target of "covering up" when they attempt to contain the political damage. They do it by an almost comical overreaction to an accumulation of charges that don't "pass the smell test" thus creating a "where there's smoke there's fire" impression over time.
...I can't help but wonder whether or not the likes of Liz Cheney would so arrogantly shoot her mouth off if the Democrats hadn't decided that there was no need to look in the rear view mirror at the mayhem created by her father's bloodthirsty, corrupt regime. It might make these people think twice if they were held to the same standard they hold others. And until that happens, I'm afraid we are going to continue to see this dynamic play itself out in our politics.
BTW: You can see the ambition rolling off of Cheney in waves. She's going to run at some point, I have no doubt. And she makes Palin look like a frisky little kitten by comparison. She is the most dangerous woman in America.
Transcript via Lexis Nexis below the fold.
WALLACE: Liz, during the Bush-Cheney years, Republicans complained about the criminalization of politics -- as I pointed out with Governor Rendell, when Democrats made a big deal about the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys, as Democrats complained during the Clinton administration. Should the GOP break the cycle and not make a federal case of this?
CHENEY: No. Look, I think there are some things that clearly rise to the level of needing independent investigation.
And what you've had happen here, obviously, is the White House put out a statement on the Friday before Memorial Day announcing that Bill Clinton had been involved, which I'm sure was really not that reassuring to most Americans. I mean, there is not exactly an impeccable record of integrity there on the part of the former president.
But secondly, then you have Rahm Emanuel basically have his own lawyer, the White House counsel, issue a statement saying, "Hey, this is all fine. We're good to go," with no analysis whatsoever. Clearly, you need somebody to come in and take a look at exactly what happened. We don't know what happened.
WALLACE: What specifically bothers you the most? What is the thing that you really want to see independently investigated?
CHENEY: You know, there's a lot here that just smells funny. If the White House, in fact, thought that what they were doing was aboveboard, why did they go to Bill Clinton? Why did they need a cut- out for whatever they were doing? I want to know what he offered. I want to know what the president knew.
The president says he didn't know. I find it really hard to believe that the chief of staff would go to a former president to get him to try to get somebody out of the race without telling the president of the United States.
And finally, this is very reminiscent of the campaign finance scandals back in the mid-'90s when they were selling the Lincoln bedroom. And so I think the American people have a right to know here. We've got Rahm Emanuel, Bill Clinton back engaged in this. Exactly what happened? Were any laws broken? What offer was made?