When it comes to cable news morning shows, each of the three major networks have their own style and blend. CNN for the most part is the responsible station that while they still make mistakes, are pretty fair and balanced, albeit boring. Fox News is the class clowns of the News world and I honestly think that deep down inside even they don’t take themselves seriously. MSNBC, while it has great evening programs, probably have the worse morning show. Yes, its worse than Fox. I can view Fox & Friends as entertainment and not to be taken seriously. Morning Joe on MSNBC however is hosted by two idiots that think they have original thoughts when in actuality they are just a couple of idiots. Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are painful to watch in the morning. But this morning it was particularly painful because the spawn of evil Sith Lord Darth Cheney (Liz Cheney) was on to defend her daddy’s decision to speak out against the current Administration’s stance on torture.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I knew it was going to be bad when Joe Scarborough, who wasn’t in studio, called in just to help defend the red herring arguments that Liz Cheney was using. It’s like Scarborough has dog ears and republican bullshit is the whistle that only he can hear. Here’s the illogical arguments that Liz Cheney and Joe Scarborough, along with Dick Cheney and a host of other republican morons, are using to defend torture:
1. It’s not torture
This was the first argument used back when this topic came up when George Bush was still in office. It’s not torture, its “harsh interrogation techniques.” This has to be the most juvenile argument I’ve ever heard. Its like when you were in the car with your sibling and you put your finger as close to their face as possible and when they said “stop touching me” you’d respond “I’m not touching you.”  Sure, compared to some ancient Medieval torture methods like the rack or removing someone’s internal organs one by one when they are still alive, waterboarding seems pretty tame. But its still torture. This is like when Whitney Houston was like “I’m too rich to do crack…I do cocaine…I’m not hooked on drugs.” WTF? This redefinition is nothing new for these fools, I’m just mad that news hosts like Mika and Joe let them get away with it. Remember, these same people trying to redefine torture also later said “Well, even IF it was torture…the treatment of these terrorist prisoners isn’t covered under the Geneva Convention because they aren’t Prisoners of War but “enemy combatants”. Are you kidding me? That is absurd.
2. It worked
The most recent claim now being spearheaded by Dick Cheney and his daughter (who Joe Scarborough is obviously infatuated with ) is that these methods worked and therefore we should continue them. Since when did this become the issue? Of course torture produces results. You water board someone 183 times in a few months and they’re going to talk. That’s not the issue. The issue is, is torturing someone the morally right thing to do AND does publicly supporting it benefit us in the long run. Think about it. When there’s a serial rapist, the police aren’t allowed to take him into the interrogation room and waterboard him until he confesses. Our laws don’t allow that. It would be a lot easier for President Obama to get his policies through if he murdered his political opponents. Again, I don’t see anyone asking Robert Gibbs when the President plans on getting rid of his Eric Cantor problem. These things are things that happen in other countries though. I did a story last week about a pregnant British woman that might face the firing squad in Laos, which hosts a really inhumane prison. The British and some American groups are outraged. Yet we allow Dick Cheney and hosts like Joe Scarborough to come on TV and say that because torture works, we should keep doing it.
Here’s the problem, in the short term torture gets your results. But in the long run, the collateral damage you do far outweighs any benefit. When your policy on handling prisoners goes around the Geneva Conventions and the policy is to torture, then you’ve made it difficult to make any kind of political solution to the terrorism problem. Let’s not mince words here. Waterboarding is torture. Forcing someone to go through simulated drowning isn’t a harsh interrogation technique, it’s torture. Plain and simple. If ass clowns like Dick or Liz Cheney think that because it works we should do it, then I don’t see why they have such a problem calling it what it is.
And I’ll leave with this note. If torture is such an effective technique, how come in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries that support torturing detainees, how come they still produce terrorists. How come terrorists still plan attacks from these countries? If torture is such an effective policy, wouldn’t there be zero crime in those countries? Of course its foolish to come up with such conclusions…but its no more foolish and idiotic than the ones the former Vice President and his daughter are using.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I haven’t even read the entire thing yet and I already have to interject….I would like to point out that CNN’s style is ‘Drama Queen!’ I am really tired of them blowing everything up to have news coverage. I used to like Anderson Cooper until he gave into the shit too. Wolf Blitzer, ‘Stop Shouting at Me’ Rick Sanchez/Tony Harris combos and John Roberts are all drama queens making something out of nothing instead of actually investigating news before opening their mouths.
Then there is John King with his magic wall and the hologram/fake ass person stunt they tried during elections. Everything can’t be put in numbers and please stop distracting me with stupid ass props. Just give me some damn news.
Ok…back to reading about Dick’s crazy ass nut in human form (pun intended).
May 12th, 2009 at 11:03 am
One of the other arguments against torture is that it has a tendency to produce “false positives” among those who really do not have anything to tell. They will say SOMETHING just to make the torture stop. So, is it really effective? Perhaps, because you get the real answers from those who actually are involved in deep-level terrorism to reveal deep, dirty secrets. But is it efficient? 183 times for an answer? And then of course, you’ve got to sift through all the bullshit over what’s real and what’s not… it does not sound very efficient to me. When you weigh that along with how it makes us appear to the Middle East (those whose “hearts and minds” we are trying to win over, supposedly), I really wonder if there is a net positive benefit.
As you’ve said, I’d like to know that it’s something we’re good at in dire and necessary situations, but as a common, publicly supported practice, we just end up looking like assholes to the rest of the world. That can’t be good in the long-run.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:08 am
And as far as torture is concerned…I am going to senselessly base my opinion on the show 24. Yes I know that 24 is made for TV drama (this season, too much damn drama that its annoying) but it does provide somewhat of a glimpse into possible situations that might be occurring beyond the peripherals of the average joe.
I also watched documentaries and interviews of ex cia officers and special ops people and hear them describe some things that they have dealt with in policing the world.
If extreme situations, I believe that torture is absolutely necessary. Intel gathering is sometimes that crucial. I am sorry if this is selfish but I d rather myself and my family stay alive if it means that some fucktard who decided to do evil in the world needs to be waterboarded.
This is not just for ‘terrorists’ and the media uses the words…I am not a parent but I can only imagine someone kidnapping my child and have them hiding in an undisclosed location….I will personally waterboard that fucker and shock the shit out the persons gonads to find out any info that will help me find my child.
Only problem that I saw with the Bush administration is that they made it public cause they had this idea that they had major low hanging fruit. Come up with guidelines on when it is necessary, train special people to do it appropriately and do what you gotta do….just don’t tell me about it.
See no evil, hear no evil.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:15 am
My whole thing is, now that it’s out in the open…stop defending it. You got caught, its cool…let it go. But to try to redefine it “oh it’s not torture” or to try to act like it’s the right thing to do is bullshit. Is it necessary, I’m sure in certain circumstances…but don’t lie about it or act like its socially acceptable because if it is, then we should do the same thing here domestically with people that get locked up. To use the 24 analogy, Jack Bauer gets results when he tortures…but he also admits that he’s done horrible things and willingly accepts the consequences for them. Dick Cheney and them want to defend torture but don’t want to accept the consequences. Which to me is pretty pussified.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:28 am
I will agree to that. The ‘All or Nothing’ approach is never going to work is just too stupid. Someone allude to something yesterday that made sense to me…discuss the shit ‘in house’…no matter how much you disagree. Same idea as not letting family beef get out the house.
Dick Cheney believes what he believes and for everyone in the country to try to tell him that he is ABSOLUTELY wrong is quite ridiculous to me. No grown man (right or wrong) wants to sit there and watch the entire country tell him that he is the scum of the earth and just not do anything about it. I don’t agree with Cheney at all in MOST of this ideas…but at least I know that he ain’t a bitch. The only bitch thing that he is doing is the public nature of all of his comments…he needs to take a different road and address them privately (thats if anyone will listen).
Bush on the other hand decided to go lay low and not defend all the shit thats been said about him. I am not saying they should be loud and be on radio everyday but you look more like a bitch not even responding to any of it.
I am not going into arguements about who is right or wrong on what issues….thats another convo. But the principle behind you letting an entire nation call you out your name (whether right or wrong) and not doing anything to even defend yourself (whether done right or wrong) is quite absurd.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:44 am
I think you misunderstand why everyone is telling Dick Cheney to shut the fuck up. Dick Cheney for one is the same ass clown that tried to say it was unpatriotic to speak out against the President during war time. Last I checked, we still have two wars going on and the only thing that’s changed is that now that a democrat is in office, Dick Cheney wants to speak out against him. According to Cheney’s own words we should execute him for treason. Bush, as much as I can’t stand the fucker, is following protocol. An immediate past President or Vice President should not be on TV talking about how wrong the current administration is this soon after they took office. As for privately, sure, he can share his concern but its not like the Obama Administration doesn’t know what his position is.
The biggest thing though is that he’s a hypocrite. During the Bush years we couldn’t question the President during war time…now it’s Obama in office and Cheney and all these Bush Administration officials want to give their input both publicly and privately. Fuck that…they should follow their own advice and shut the fuck up.
May 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Nah I completely understand and I strongly agree that Cheney needs to STFU and follow protocol and let the new guy do his job and if he has anything to say….do it through private channels (since I never see the private stuff…not sure if it happens or the protocol surrounding it but keep it that way).
But one thing I need to know is that is there any protocol around NOT bashing the most recent administration EVERY CHANCE YOU GET out of some type of respect. Its okay when I do it and when the news reporters do it…but when high officials within the current administration starts doing it, isn’t that in itself dangerous. Isn’t that harmful the idea of even maintaining some type of institutional knowledge. I don’t mind disagreements but disagree with some level of respect.
Is the new administration not likely to fuck up if they don’t even want to hear ANYTHING that the previous administration has to offer (no matter how bad they were, they still have some information that might be necessary to know).
The question then is…who started the bashing first? Senior admins from Bush admin? The entire democratic party? The media? Joe the Plumber?
If I was Obama and was called a socialist, I d be pissed. If I was Cheney and was called a gun toting, mass murderer/torturer…I d be equally pissed.
I m not arguing right or wrong…I guess its just ‘Politics As Usual’
May 12th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
It is politics as usual but in this case I put it all on Dick Cheney. He’s sour cause the election was in essence a condemnation of the Bush Administration’s policies. If you want to know who fired the first shot, the truth is…we the people did when we elected President Obama. Jon Stewart had a great piece last night on this where he basically said that Cheney is pissed that Obama is keeping his campaign promises. I actually think the Current Administration has been pretty easy on bashing the previous administration. Sure they play some politics with it too (Hell, if I had a 70% approval rating I’d try to make the face of the opposition party the guy with the 19% approval rating), but for the most part they’ve been pretty moderate. Obama was elected to basically undo everything the previous administration did…so therefore if he keeps his campaign promises…he in essence has bashed the previous administration. But that’s what we wanted…and truthfully, he’s being nice about it. Obama wants to move forward but a lot of the American people think Cheney and Bush are criminals and want their heads on a platter…so Cheney shouldn’t be mad at the Obama Administration but the citizens of these country who don’t think he should be walking around free.
May 12th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I am just thinking back to Al Gore and Bill Clinton after they finished their terms…I am not sure that they went in a hole and STFU. They weren’t as aggressive and forceful as Cheney is being right now but they had a lot to say especially when the country started falling apart. Clinton especially came out to defend some of the accusations they try to put on him regarding taxes and him not securing the country and letting shit slide which contributed to 911. Protocol on shutting up is cool until ppl start pointing fingers at you, then you step up and do what you gotta do. Cheney was never an honest and decent politician, he is ruthless and could give a shit less about what the country thinks about him….was the same way in his administration and it won’t change now therefore I am not surprised…I can only sit back and watch the mayhem.
I am watching these experts give all these opinions on how Cheney is being a dick and all that good stuff…thinking to myself Americans have a short term ass memory. Another soundbite for the week and next week we will be discussing the idea that John Edward’s mistress might be an illegal alien. If the news media would stop giving the old fucker a microphone and ignore his ass then this wouldn’t be a discussion, they go fishing for dirt/drama and then wanna shove it in my face.
May 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
The difference is, the country had started to fall apart then. Cheney started out the gates saying that Obama’s Administration was hurting this country…and he is doing so with zero proof. When Gore started saying that Bush’s policies were bad for this country, we had proof that it was true: Increased Anti-American sentiments, huge increase in terrorist attacks against U.S.and U.S. ally targets abroad, Al Qaeda getting stronger, failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…etc. Cheney has nothing to really say that Obama’s making this country worse…if anything all signs point to the opposite.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
The worst part about it, and they’ve shown it time and time again, when the message is coming from their camp, conservatives do not need proof. Whatever is said becomes gospel; hook, line, and sinker. And the GOP knows that. Throw enough shit out there and some of it will stick. People will talk about it at work and make bold claims and it becomes kind organic/grassroots talking points. How do you think it is that every Republican you ever talk to is on that same gotdamn message. Cheney knows exactly what he’s doing and unfortunately for us, some of what he is saying is going to stick.