Megyn Kelly makes the Cheneys answer for being ‘wrong’ on Iraq

posted at 10:01 am on June 19, 2014 by Noah Rothman

It isn’t just the left that is cheering Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly this morning, a day after she gave former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz Cheney a sound grilling over Iraq, many on the right suspicious of an interventionist foreign policy are cheering her as well.

On Wednesday night, Kelly hosted the Cheney’s for what was billed as a discussion about their new political initiative aimed at crafting criticisms of President Barack Obama’s present approach to foreign policy. While there is much that is worthy of criticism in Obama’s handling of foreign affairs, some, including AllahPundit, wondered if the Cheneys could serve as helpful messengers.

Kelly brought those concerns directly to the Cheneys. After reading a portion of a brutal op-ed which essentially accused Cheney of setting in motion the events which have led to the present chaos in Iraq, Kelly voiced her own criticism of the former vice president.

“Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir,” she said


That’s a little harsh, and it’s certainly a debatable point, but the substance of this interview is not what struck me. What was important, and is frankly undervalued by the rest of the political press, is how frequently the supposedly conservative news network veers off what many believe is their script. What’s more, when this sort of contentious interview with a prominent Republican occurs, Fox is rewarded for it by their core audience.

The opposite is not the case, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey on cable news viewers’ satisfaction with the product they are consuming:

One thing that differs when it comes to MSNBC is that it does not draw the same uniformly positive reviews from consistent liberals that FNC does from consistent conservatives. While nearly half (45%) of consistent liberals view MSNBC favorably, that’s not much better than how MSNBC rates among those with mixed ideological views (38%). Nearly half of consistent liberals offer no opinion of MSNBC. By contrast, the vast majority of consistent conservatives offer an opinion of Fox News, with 74% favorable and just 5% unfavorable.

“When MSNBC President Phil Griffin decided to turn his network into a liberal answer to Fox News, he was betting that there was a progressive audience out there to match the conservative faithful on the other side,” Politico’s Dylan Byers reacted. “But people don’t simply watch opinion channels because the programming matches their partisan views. The programming has to be compelling.”

Yes, but it’s more than that. Having watched MSNBC evolve as a network over the last two years, it seems to me that their every answer to ratings challenges is strive to be even more predictable. It has become increasingly rare for an MSNBC host to go off the reservation of progressive thought.

Kelly’s interview of the Cheneys was compelling, but it was also contentious and tension makes for good television. It is possible that MSNBC’s core audience simply does not appreciate having the members of their “team” challenged by those who are supposedly on their side. When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Kelly be loving her some Big Dick………….Cheney. Sorry…in advance.

msupertas on June 19, 2014 at 10:08 AM

When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?

Never,you have to watch to see something.

docflash on June 19, 2014 at 10:10 AM

It bothers me, on all sides, when the interviewers questions are in the form of reading quotes from “other people” and asking to respond. Just ask “your” question Megyn. And what Megyn started with was mostly from bombastic Cheney haters.

Norbitz on June 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Well without Iraq there is no Obama.

Only reason why he torpedoed Hilary’s campaign was that “he was against the Iraq war from the beginning”

Anytime Cheney talks always remember he gave us the Obama presidency.

weedisgood on June 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM

I’m glad she pointed this out. Barack Obama is in office today because of the policy mistakes Cheney helped to make.

Pincher Martin on June 19, 2014 at 10:16 AM

What was important, and is frankly undervalued by the rest of the political press, is how frequently the supposedly conservative news network veers off what many believe is their script.

wut?

this interview is getting attention precisely because this is one of those EXTREMELY RARE OCCASIONS where they have EVER veered off script.

and let’s be clear, this is just “veering” between the two current poles of the right at the moment – neocon hawks and libertarian isolationsists.

regardless, the Cheneys are doing this round of interviews simply to direct you gullible saps to their moneygrubbing website. They know they’re lying, but they know there’s a whole swath of morons who will support them anyways with their hard earned dough.

Good for Megyn to call him directly on his appalling BS.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I have no problem with Kelly’s question – or the style with which it was asked.

The Iraq story is full of miscues – fault – victories – etc.

jake-the-goose on June 19, 2014 at 10:18 AM

The Cheneys can take it. Too bad Obama can’t.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Meanwhile, anonymous sources say Rumsfeld is smiling. Broadly.

platypus on June 19, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Well without Iraq there is no Obama.

Partly true, I guess.

If Bush had reversed all of his foreign and economic policies, then the republicans might have had a chance to beat obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Repeat a lie enough and people will believe it. Fox is HARDLY “conservative”. They have conservative OP-ED people; but the NEWS is hardly conservative. But, this is the entire problem with RINOs. They take the lies that the left and Obama tell, and then try to mitigate, rather than totally refute with strong logic and NO APOLOGIES.

What MK did last night was commit an act of JOURNALISM. That this seems to result in shock and awe from Noah about Kelly tells me he hasn’t watched her much.

BTW, this entire story feeds the meme that Fox is “conservative” and therefore biased. Making comparisons to MSNBC is, quite frankly, silly.

MistyLane on June 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Pincher Martin on June 19, 2014 at 10:16 AM

I don’t think the “financial meltdown” hurt either. Thank you George Soros.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Let’s not kid ourselves, the Cheneys’ “Alliance for a Strong America” is just a project to attract donations that will pay them and a small number of other family members and cronies fat salaries.

Don’t give them a dime. Save your cash for direct contributions to conservative candidates. They at least are in a position to create change.

doufree on June 19, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I watched. At first I thought she was harsh, but after some thought I think she was giving them the opportunity to rebut. They could have done a better job, but they were alright. Too bad Bret and Greta didn’t try some hard questions on Hillary…

sandee on June 19, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Let’s not kid ourselves, the Cheneys’ “Alliance for a Strong America” is just a project to attract donations that will pay them and a small number of other family members and cronies fat salaries.

Don’t give them a dime. Save your cash for direct contributions to conservative candidates. They at least are in a position to create change.

doufree on June 19, 2014 at 10:20 AM

listen to doufree, all of you.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM

wut?

this interview is getting attention precisely because this is one of those EXTREMELY RARE OCCASIONS where they have EVER veered off script.

and let’s be clear, this is just “veering” between the two current poles of the right at the moment – neocon hawks and libertarian isolationsists.

regardless, the Cheneys are doing this round of interviews simply to direct you gullible saps to their moneygrubbing website. They know they’re lying, but they know there’s a whole swath of morons who will support them anyways with their hard earned dough.

Good for Megyn to call him directly on his appalling BS.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Fox has and has had a lot of lefty commentators. MSNBC has Joe Scarborough. And conservative or libertarian guests are usually greatly outnumbered when on MSNBC.

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Good for Megyn to call him directly on his appalling BS.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Hell yeah!!!

I can’t believe you didn’t shoe horn HALLIBURTON in there some where.

BigWyo on June 19, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I always thought Cheney should have resigned (for health reasons) after the first term so that there would have been a VP in the White House who could run for President instead of having an open field in 2008. It would have made for a different Republican Presidential campaign.

albill on June 19, 2014 at 10:23 AM

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Now I wasn’t even considering a donation until your advice.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:24 AM

The Cheney’s are not good messengers for the Iraq problem.

The retort/squirrel is always ‘they got us into this mess’. This confuses the low information voter. My relatives this weekend were even complaining about Bush/Iraq (argg).

It’s best to keep low info voters thinking about the Al Qaeda danger that only Obama has now put us in. Bush had nothing to do with it.

faraway on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Too damn bad FOX didn’t taken on the Hildabeast in this manner.

Appalacher on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

If one party starts a project and then the other party drops it leading to disaster, do you blame the one that started the project or the one that dropped it.

In Korea both parties supported the project and a stable democracy that both trades and allies with the US resulted. In Vietnam, the same party that started the conflict eventually abondoned it leading to disaster while blaming the party that neither started or abondoned it.

In Iraq, we cannot know what would have resulted if a residual force had been left there. We do know that leaving entirely has not turned out well. Cheney could not presume when this project began that it would follow a course like that in South Vietnam rather than a course like that in South Korea.

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?

MSNBC -> NBC -> Comcast: they can ‘afford’ to lose money on MSNBC, so they don’t have to provide an opposing view.

What Democrats/MSNBC lose in ratings, they more than make for in their lock step attitude about winning elections. Personally, I would rather see Republicans win more elections and move this country more to the right than I would care about a floundering “news” network’s ratings.

Mark Boabaca on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

If Iraq was going great because of US troops still in Iraq, she would have been asking Cheney about what a great job Obama was doing building democracies in the Middle East.

albill on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Let’s not kid ourselves, the Cheneys’ “Alliance for a Strong America” is just a project to attract donations that will pay them and a small number of other family members and cronies fat salaries.

Don’t give them a dime. Save your cash for direct contributions to conservative candidates. They at least are in a position to create change.

doufree on June 19, 2014 at 10:20 AM

listen to doufree, all of you.

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM

So, when are you two announcing your engagement? June is a wonderful month for weddings!

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Literally the best interview ever.

libfreeordie on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

msupertas on June 19, 2014 at 10:08 AM

WTF?

I fail to see what was so ‘compelling’ about this. Basically, she used Cheney’s appearance to ingratiate herself with the Left. I find the whole tone and use of ‘sir’ there at the end annoying, too. That’s all this was.

changer1701 on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

“Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir,” she said

Hurling invective is not a substitute for intelligent debate. Ms. Kelly’s articulation is no exception.

We can and do debate the need for our intervention in Iraq. And, like any other conflict in which our country has been involved, perfection is not a plausible outcome.

In war and conflict, there are never wholly achievable ends, only outcomes guided by principle and complicated by factors such as the process of nation building. Those achievements are made even harder by an electorate who is fickle and unrealistic with its desired outcome and patience for a process which in reality takes decades, not years. It is further complicated in a democracy, where political actors largely do not “lead” but follow their own personal proclivities- often to our detriment.

So yes, we can debate the wisdom of our policies. But that should occur within the complete scope of all participants, irrespective of administration or party. Because in that holistic environment is the full basis for our decisions. Democracy and actions such as the war in Iraq are not the actions of one man, but a nation operating in all its imperfections. Ms. Kelly would be wise to learn and understand that.

Marcus Traianus on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Good for Megyn to call him directly on his appalling BS.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Hell yeah!!!

I can’t believe you didn’t shoe horn HALLIBURTON in there some where.

BigWyo on June 19, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Halliburton became toxic to the Left after 2007, when their Sugar Daddy George Soros bought $61 million worth of the firm. And later it turned out that Mikey Moore was also a Halliburton stockholder.

Why do you think they had to invent the Koch Brothers?

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM

After Liz tried to take out a conservative in Wyoming instead of the liberal incumbent Warner in VA, the state she actually lives in, I lost respect for her and the Cheney family coattails she rode in on. If she was that concerned about the issues she is seen as strong in, she would be presidential material. She isn’t.

Imagine another scenario where she took the Obama administration to task on Benghazi. She should have challenged Rand Paul to explain his ideas more, too, since he is a direct counter to her ideology.

Then as Obama’s foreign policy unraveled, she could be hitting Warner on all fronts for supporting an administration that is increasingly being seen as incompetent on all fronts, but most damningly in regards to the VA scandal at home. This was such a missed opportunity for her. These issues were all tailor made for her seemingly, but she chose to go the safe route. As for Warner, the Obama meltdown has to be tied to him, because he is successfully branding himself as someone above partisan politics who is working hard for VA. Make him own up to being a Democrat. Go beyond his voting record.

ezspirit on June 19, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Let’s not kid ourselves, the Cheneys’ “Alliance for a Strong America” is just a project to attract donations that will pay them and a small number of other family members and cronies fat salaries.

Don’t give them a dime. Save your cash for direct contributions to conservative candidates. They at least are in a position to create change.

doufree on June 19, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I think the Cheneys have plenty of money.

Personally, money spent on politics is a bad investment unless you’re GE or Solyndra or a union.

Good Lt on June 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM

There’s a reason why the only MSNBC program anyone watches is Morning Joe – because it has at least one semi-conservative on it, but also because the more liberal’s hosts there will frequently criticize liberal politicians and question the conventional MSM wisdom.

Bill O’Reilly has consistently been the highest rated cable TV personality for years. There’s a reason for that, too – “The No-Spin Zone” may not always be true every night, but the idea of a “no-spin zone” is like water to a viewing public that is dying of thirst. O’Reilly certainly leans conservative, but he has also called out conservatives when they need to be called out.

Megyn Kelly is simply continuing in that vein, and her ratings prove that conservatives are not looking for a “preach-to-the-choir” network, they are looking for the truth, for old-fashioned journalism that once was all about “speaking Truth to Power.”

rockmom on June 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM

When was the last time you saw Chris Hayes or Rachel Maddow interrogate a Democratic officeholder from the right?

The closest thing to a “grilling” that any Democrat will experience from MS-NBC is Ed Shultz constantly begging Obama to give him oral sex.

Kingfisher on June 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Literally the best interview ever.

libfreeordie on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Probably not.

The Rolling Stone interview(s) with Jerry Garcia, for example, are far more interesting.

Good Lt on June 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Say what you want about Bush and Cheney getting us into Iraq, but it was the perception at the time that Saddam was attempting to build a nuke. Plus, he had already shown that he was willing to use WMDs, even against his own people. Nearly everybody agreed with all of this including Britain and other governments. The Dems toed the line just as well as the Republicans did. Kelly was right to go after Cheney the way she did, but she should have added a disclaimer that anything Barack Obama said at the time would have been extremely rare for an Illinois state Senator who largely voted “present” during his tenure in Springfield.

HiJack on June 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Dick called Megyn “Reagan” once. That was funny.

Megyn Kelly opened her show tonight tearing into the Obama White House for what increasingly looks like an “imploding” presidency, given scandal after scandal after scandal the White House has found itself engulfed in, both domestically and abroad.

Kelly opened with this simply question: “Is Barack Obama‘s presidency imploding?” She cited the bewildering fact that the U.S. may ally with Iran to deal with the situation in Iraq, and ripped Obama in particular as “a president who has lost the trust of the American people by repeatedly misleading them.”

She went down a list of scandal after scandal that the president has briefly acknowledged while “smiling, golfing,” and attending fundraisers.

Akzed on June 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Literally the best interview ever.

libfreeordie on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

What???? On Faux News???

Did your head explode while you typed that? ;-)

rockmom on June 19, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Halliburton became toxic to the Left after 2007, when their Sugar Daddy George Soros bought $61 million worth of the firm. And later it turned out that Mikey Moore was also a Halliburton stockholder.

I challenge you to find one Democrat that knows this. They don’t even understand the difference between the scope of the power Soros wields compared to both Koch brothers combined.

ezspirit on June 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Good for M. Kelly. Cheney is just another big government douche. He isn’t for limited government – he wants big government to support his agenda just like Obama.

MoreLiberty on June 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Too bad Bret and Greta didn’t try some hard questions on Hillary…

sandee on June 19, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Greta is a Hillary supporter.

Bret is not very bright.

faraway on June 19, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I challenge you to find one Democrat that knows this. They don’t even understand the difference between the scope of the power Soros wields compared to both Koch brothers combined.

ezspirit on June 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM

LOL! You better believe Harry Reid knows it.

rockmom on June 19, 2014 at 10:34 AM

listen to doufree, all of you.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Go to hell..Both of you…And take that nasty libfreeanddie with you.

bimmcorp on June 19, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Megyn Kelly is simply continuing in that vein, and her ratings prove that conservatives are not looking for a “preach-to-the-choir” network, they are looking for the truth, for old-fashioned journalism that once was all about “speaking Truth to Power.”

rockmom on June 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM

I agree. If the Cheney’s weren’t prepared to answer questions, they should have stayed home. They could have done a better job, but they were okay. And no I don’t blame Bush for the mess we are in now. It belongs to obama…

sandee on June 19, 2014 at 10:34 AM

And this is one of the characteristics of the “so-called” right, support of dissent and honest, vibrant debate. It’s good to see this while the far left continues to rely on insult, ad-hominem attacks, shaming tactics, and intellectual dishonesty whenever they are confronted with a dissenting point of view whether it comes from their natural opponents or from within their own ranks. Look at how the radical feminists treated Cammile Paglia as well manospherians? Look at the way the Civil Rights Industrial Complex attacked Bill Cosby and Juan Williams, as well as Black conservatives like Thomas Sowell. I’m glad Cheney was called out mostly because it confirms that that individual liberty “DNA strand” contained within the “so-called” right is an ever present feature of our genetic composition.

AlFromBayShore on June 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM

Why do you think they had to invent the Koch Brothers?

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM

I figured ‘Because Halliburton’ was always a safe bet any time ‘Cheney’ was mentioned.

Gotta keep up with the LeftSpaz playbook.

BigWyo on June 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM

I always thought Cheney should have resigned (for health reasons) after the first term so that there would have been a VP in the White House who could run for President instead of having an open field in 2008. It would have made for a different Republican Presidential campaign.

albill on June 19, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Different maybe, but the result would have been the same. McCain was gaining steam until the bottom fell out of the economy just before the election. That would have doomed even Reagan.

HiJack on June 19, 2014 at 10:36 AM

There is no way Kelly (as a master of facts, long legs seen through a glass desk, gorgeous
blonde “journalist/lawyer”) has the facts of that war.

Taking a “hit” at Dick Cheney was designed to beef up Kelly’s
exposure as a “fair and balanced” (what a crock) reporter.
Someone who takes on the right and the left.

I thought she was arrogant and rude. And not in command of the
facts which are complicated at best.

Amjean on June 19, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Now I wasn’t even considering a donation until your advice.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:24 AM

that kind of kneejerk pettiness sums up the right’s current political motivations pretty much perfectly.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:37 AM

faraway on June 19, 2014 at 10:34 AM

They did a better job than most others. Apparently gay marriage is a bigger issue for the rest of the media. And Ms. Clinton actually showed more anger over that issue. What a world!

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM

The Cheney’s are not good messengers for the Iraq problem.

The retort/squirrel is always ‘they got us into this mess’.

So now pointing out that Cheney has no credibility on this issue is a SQUIRREL response to him commenting on this issue?

wut?

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Megyn challenged him and he responded. He’s a big boy.

What’s disappointing is the obvious reason for the Cheneys showing up – trying to keep Liz and her aspiration for elected office in the public eye.

She and dad have started a new organization dedicated to turning the nation around! Wow it’s about dang time somebody started a new organization dedicated to turning the nation around around here!

Akzed on June 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM

Well without Iraq there is no Obama.

Partly true, I guess.

If Bush had reversed all of his foreign and economic policies, then the republicans might have had a chance to beat obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

What economic policies should he have reversed, exactly? He basically had full employment avg’d for his 8 year presidency, right around 5%. Can’t exactly create new jobs when all people who want to work are working.

DEM policies of a home for everyone (CRA), even if they can’t afford it, along with the repeal of Glass-Steagal compliments of Clinton and his pal Rubin, are what sunk the economy, while people like Barney Franks was saying everything was just great even as Bush/GOP tried to bring the issue to the floor numerous times with no success.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Iraq is burning and you are focusing on how tough our side of the media can be against our own side? You people live in the bubble of proving to the stupid left that you are fair and balanced, f*** the damn left… Dick Cheney is absolutely right but you people are afraid that Cheney is going to have a negative impact on the elections so in this regard there is no difference between you and the left, your only goal is winning elections…

mnjg on June 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:37 AM

And your remark was an example of kneejerk asshattery defined by the Left. Why is it you folks think you know how to better spend my money?

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:41 AM

DEM policies of a home for everyone (CRA), even if they can’t afford it, along with the repeal of Glass-Steagal compliments of Clinton and his pal Rubin, are what sunk the economy, while people like Barney Franks was saying everything was just great even as Bush/GOP tried to bring the issue to the floor numerous times with no success.

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

That was like 3 years ago…or something…

BigWyo on June 19, 2014 at 10:43 AM

mnjg on June 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

The problem is that we have no say in what is happening or what will happen in Iraq. King Obama is now in charge. All the newscasts and PACs make no difference at this point. Regardless of why we got into Iraq, we had won. Obama has lost the victory and this mess is his and his alone.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:43 AM

So now pointing out that Cheney has no credibility on this issue is a SQUIRREL response to him commenting on this issue?

wut?

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:39 AM

It’s kind of like listening to Obama lecture us about the importance of implicitly and blindly trusting a large, intrusive federal government while the IRS complains that its leadership’s emails poofed out of existence just in time to be gone once people started asking about them.

You’re right that Cheney’s non-credibility on Iraq is a nonstarter.

Now just be consistent.

Good Lt on June 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM

“When MSNBC President Phil Griffin decided to turn his network into a liberal answer to Fox News, he was betting that there was a progressive audience out there to match the conservative faithful on the other side,”

The problem with this is that Fox News was the conservative answer to the left wing media. Turning around an answering Fox with MSNBC was a SSDD move.

tkc882 on June 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM

your only goal is winning elections…

mnjg on June 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

You would prefer 8 more years of Marxism? Put down the bong and the fake outrage.

faraway on June 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Nope, he was/is historical. White guilt won the day and I hope they are amply proud of themselves since he is far worse than Carter.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Cheney and Bush were terrible for the party and the country. They should be hiding, not out criticizing Obama, even if it is well-deserved. All Conservatives should loudly repudiate these morons if we hope to have any shot of turning things around.

echosyst on June 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Literally the best interview ever.

libfreeordie on June 19, 2014 at 10:26 AM

What specifically?

The part where they point out that Obama tried to count a stable Iraq as one of his greatest achievements?

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

There’s a reason for that, too – “The No-Spin Zone” may not always be true every night, but the idea of a “no-spin zone” is like water to a viewing public that is dying of thirst.

this sentence makes me laugh, and sob, uncontrollably.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Now I wasn’t even considering a donation until your advice.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:24 AM

that kind of kneejerk pettiness sums up the right’s current political motivations pretty much perfectly.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:37 AM

blah,blah,blah

wut?!?

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Iraq is burning and you are focusing on how tough our side of the media can be against our own side? You people blah blah blah mnjg on June 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM

What are you doing about Iraq, Capt. Concerned?

Akzed on June 19, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Good thing this happened on a Thursday morning. Just ask the cougar.

/AoSHQ reference

Christien on June 19, 2014 at 10:48 AM

And your remark was an example of kneejerk asshattery defined by the Left. Why is it you folks think you know how to better spend my money?

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:41 AM

Cindy, I could care less if you want to pad Cheney’s bank account because he says things you want to hear. Go nuts.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM

“One way or other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” President Clinton, Feb 4, 1998

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” President Clinton, Feb 17, 1998

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM

We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of the neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.” Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM

If one party starts a project and then the other party drops it leading to disaster, do you blame the one that started the project or the one that dropped it.

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

You blame the party the decided to turn its back on American national security.

beselfish on June 19, 2014 at 10:52 AM

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb 18, 1998

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Cindy, I could care less if you want to pad Cheney’s bank account because he says things you want to hear. Go nuts.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Sure you do champ…

BigWyo on June 19, 2014 at 10:52 AM

A sound grilling sounds serious you guys. Time to start a list of cool facts about Chuck Norris Dick Cheney Meg Kelly.

Christien on June 19, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Halliburton became toxic to the Left after 2007, when their Sugar Daddy George Soros bought $61 million worth of the firm. And later it turned out that Mikey Moore was also a Halliburton stockholder.

I challenge you to find one Democrat that knows this. They don’t even understand the difference between the scope of the power Soros wields compared to both Koch brothers combined.

ezspirit on June 19, 2014 at 10:32 AM

They also don’t know that in 2008 (and again in 2012) many Halliburton employees donated to O’bama, according to OpenSecrets.org. One of them in fact was a Halliburton senior Vice President.

The left also totally ignores the decades-long marriage between Democrat President Lyndon Johnson and Halliburton subsidiary KBR, which started years before Dick Cheney was even born.

As for the K-Word, there are 58 other evil corporations that donate more to political causes than the Koch Brothers, but those are irrelevant because they all donate to the Correct Party.

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 10:54 AM

I never felt we should have entered Iraq because of the very same reason the “Democracy Project” was a complete cluster: They are an uncivilized society.
That’s also why I felt once boots were on the ground they were by far the most important thing there. They were the only thing civilized, surrounded by tribal barbarism that considered them sub human. And the fact that ever leaving that place in a civilized state could very well ever be a mathematical impossibility. (Odessa<Jihad*infinity) You can't make cornbread out of cow shite. And as the reign of B proves you shouldn't try.
And again I apologize but I've totally missed the rebuttal/s of Georges Sada's detailed movement of WMD from Iraq to Syria though, I've sheepishly requested such a testimonial smack down here on a few occasions so if anyone is able to give real proof of such smack away. Or the math that shows after using them 10 known times since 1984 they ran out urgh never had them!
I would however have endorsed completely bombing them back to their favorite century. I'm like that with tribal barbarians who view my fellow citizens as animals only fit for killing.

onomo on June 19, 2014 at 10:54 AM

What economic policies should he have reversed, exactly? He basically had full employment avg’d for his 8 year presidency, right around 5%. Can’t exactly create new jobs when all people who want to work are working.

Bush doubled unemployment from 4% to 8% in his 8yrs.

Bush turned a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, in 8yrs.

Bush’s unfunded tax cuts for the investor class and banking and trading deregulations were a prime cause of the bubble that burst so dramatically in his final years in office.

If he had avoided doing that, AND avoided going into Iraq, then yes, maybe the republicans might have beat Obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Not the point. I’ll pay for financial advice and it won’t be from some Left wing hack. Have as many opinions as you can put out there but your advice on money and ideology are less than useless.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Cindy, I could care less if you want to pad Cheney’s bank account because he says things you want to hear. Go nuts.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM

You DO realize that Cheney is rich already, he doesn’t need any money, he’s just happy to be alive and routinely donates ooodles and oodles of money to charity, right sport? *winks and laughs And NO whining about the straw-man,…well he got all those “no-bid” contracts..wah,wah,wah…cus we can debate that too ; )

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 10:58 AM

I remember when reporters routinely asked tough questions of all politicians. Isn’t that their job?

myiq2xu on June 19, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Bush doubled unemployment from 4% to 8% in his 8yrs.

Bush turned a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, in 8yrs.

Bush’s unfunded tax cuts for the investor class and banking and trading deregulations were a prime cause of the bubble that burst so dramatically in his final years in office.

If he had avoided doing that, AND avoided going into Iraq, then yes, maybe the republicans might have beat Obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Ha ha ha. Of course you’d trot out all the old and long debunked lefty talking points.

Good for you. We wouldn’t expect anything less.

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Dick Cheney steals candy from babies…and gives it to diabetic babies.

/AoS

Christien on June 19, 2014 at 10:59 AM

Wow. Either HA has attracted too many under-30 or low-info voters. What Kelly said to Cheney shows she wasn’t following Iraq or the left very closely at all during Bush years.

Connie on June 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM

KW64 on June 19, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Well said.

tomshup on June 19, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Did you notice how contentious the Hillary interview was…..? Compelling.

d1carter on June 19, 2014 at 11:02 AM

OK, she’s a tough interviewer and goes after everybody.

That’s bad?

If Bush had reversed all of his foreign and economic policies, then the republicans might have had a chance to beat obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Are we talking about all his work to get Congress to repeal the Clinton policy of subprime mortgages?

Maybe his smashing of the Taliban regime in A-stan?

Or the fact he did win the campaign in Iraq?

How about bringing back the economy after 9/11 and Enron (which Willie and Hilla knew was just around the corner)?

Face it. The only way the Demos got in was media lies.

formwiz on June 19, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Bush doubled unemployment from 4% to 8% in his 8yrs.

Bush turned a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, in 8yrs.

Bush’s unfunded tax cuts for the investor class and banking and trading deregulations were a prime cause of the bubble that burst so dramatically in his final years in office.

If he had avoided doing that, AND avoided going into Iraq, then yes, maybe the republicans might have beat Obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

DOH..you mean the budget “surplus” that ONLY occurred the ONLY time the GOP controlled the Congress during the last 50 years, you know, 1994-2006? *laughs

“Obama didn’t inherit the deficit or the economy, he, along with his party, controlled the Senate and the House 2 years before he became President.
*
When democrats took power in Washington, at the end of 2006 the deficit was 150 billion and the National debt 8.5 trillion, by the end of 2008 the deficit grew to 430 billion and the National Debt 10 trillion, now with democrats controlling all of the federal government the deficit ending 2009 is 1.5 trillion and the National debt 12 trillion. (17+ trillion now).
*
If Obama needs to whine about what he ‘inherited’, he should look no further then Pelosi, Reid and himself.
*
When Pelosi-Reid took over Congress in January, 2007, Unemployment was 4.6%. GDP, Manufacturing output, Federal Revenues and Total Employment were all the highest in US history and 52 consecutive months of growth. After 3 years of Pelosi-Reid Gangster Government, output has fallen by 6%. The number of unemployed Americans is the highest in history. They have nationalized nearly 1/6th of the US economy, spent over 7 trillion dollars we don’t have and put the taxpayers on the hook for $trillions in mortgage debt. With all the corruption and bribery involved in the writing and passing of the monstrous “Health Care” bill, does anyone think its administration will be any different?
*
It’s true that he deficit was $455 billion when Mr. Obama took office, with $325.3 billion of that from the bank rescue bill Sen. Obama supported.
*
But since Jan. 20, Mr. Obama has only added to the red ink. He has signed into law a $787 billion stimulus package and a $33 billion expansion of the State Child Health Insurance Program. He’s green lighted spending another $330.4 billion in bank rescue money. And he signed a $410 billion bill to fund discretionary spending for the second half of the current fiscal year, 2009, an increase of 8% on an annual basis. By supporting each spending initiative, he robbed himself of the ability to credibly blame others for the size of the deficit.
*
When Bush came into office in 2001 the economy was officially in recession with unemployment rising & illegals training in our flight schools to fly airliners without learning to do landings.
*
Correct me if I’m wrong but when liberals took over Congress in 2006 unemployment was 4.6% & deficit was $124 billion about 1% GDP. As a member of Democrat controlled Senate Obama “inherited” a situation partly, if not mostly, of his own making. Of course I’ll be stunned when leftists ever accept any responsibility for their own proven failed policies.”

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM

I love all the lefties here decrying Cheney on Iraq when Democrats signed up for it as well and in fact begged to be given a second chance to vote for it.

And then they conspicuously ignore Afghanistan which is much the same story as Iraq except the Democrats have always considered Afghanistan the “right war”.

And ignore Obama and Biden taking credit for Iraq once they got into office.

You guys are a hoot.

gwelf on June 19, 2014 at 11:06 AM

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

You’ve expired.

22044 on June 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM

everdiso

Facts:
Unemployment rates. How do you FIGURE he increased it from 4-8%? LMAO You mean in 2008 when the idiot DEMS took over and bypassed him completely with CR’s and what not waiting for O to take over the destruction and reckless spending?
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6

DebraChicago on June 19, 2014 at 11:07 AM

Iraq is one of Dear Leader’s greatest achievements………

d1carter on June 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM

What are you doing about Iraq, Capt. Concerned?

Akzed on June 19, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Dumb question as I do not command the US military…

mnjg on June 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Megyn Kelly is no Ed Schultz.

Bishop on June 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Bush doubled unemployment from 4% to 8% in his 8yrs.

Subprime mortgages invented by Whitewater Willie and the market meltdown they caused did.

Bush turned a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, in 8yrs.

There never was a surplus, only projections.

Bush’s unfunded tax cuts for the investor class and banking and trading deregulations were a prime cause of the bubble that burst so dramatically in his final years in office.

Subprime mortgages, doofus, which he spent 8 years fighting.

If he had avoided doing that, AND avoided going into Iraq, then yes, maybe the republicans might have beat Obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Oh, yeah, the Choom Gang had so much going for them, they didn’t need all the media lies, like torture, no WMDs, baby killing (and, hey, who brags about that, but Choomie himself), and lost campaign that was actually won.

Grow up, junior.

formwiz on June 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM

this sentence makes me laugh, and sob, uncontrollably.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Bi-polar, whack job. Get help!

Vince on June 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM

Bush doubled unemployment from 4% to 8% in his 8yrs.

Bush turned a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit, in 8yrs.

Bush’s unfunded tax cuts for the investor class and banking and trading deregulations were a prime cause of the bubble that burst so dramatically in his final years in office.

If he had avoided doing that, AND avoided going into Iraq, then yes, maybe the republicans might have beat Obama. maybe.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

The average unemployment during the Bush years was 5.5% Better than Obama.

Obama has spent more money than all previous presidents combined, and he still has 2 years to go. He hasn’t helped our debt situation, and the US’s credit rating was was downgraded twice on his watch – once in 2011 and once in 2013. Can’t blame Bush for Obama’s spending and fiscal irresponsibility, since Obama’s name and the Democrats’ votes are on the spending bills and the $800 billion ‘stimulus’ that never happened.

Tax cuts had nothing to do with the bubble bursting. EVERYONE got tax relief under the law, not just wealthy people who pay most of the nation’s taxes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with Bear Stearns, triggered the collapse. Barney Frank prevented Fannie and Freddie from being reformed, despite Bush administration attempts to do so.

Just because Cheney is wrong on Iraq doesn’t give you license to re-write all contemporary history to suit your political whims.

Good Lt on June 19, 2014 at 11:09 AM

You would prefer 8 more years of Marxism? Put down the bong and the fake outrage.

faraway on June 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM

No fake outrage… When winning elections is ranked higher than national security interests then we are f***ed…

mnjg on June 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Not the point. I’ll pay for financial advice and it won’t be from some Left wing hack. Have as many opinions as you can put out there but your advice on money and ideology are less than useless.

Cindy Munford on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

please, Cindy, donate freely to Dick Cheney. Give him all your money.

everdiso on June 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Bush doubled unemployment from 4% to 8% in his 8yrs.

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on June 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Sorry, simpleton, but the unemployment rate in January of 2008 was 5%. It went up to 7.7% the following year due to the Democrats taking over Congress.

Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3