President Bush’s final press conference yesterday got a lot of press coverage. Less attention has been given, however, to the various exit interviews of Dick Cheney—who, whatever you think of him, is generally acknowledged to have been the most powerful second-in-command in U.S. history.
On tomorrow’s NewsHour, Jim Lehrer will be conducting his exit interview with Cheney. So we ask you: What questions should Lehrer ask the outgoing Veep?
Every Tuesday, CJR outlines a news-related question and opens the floor for debate. For previous News Meeting topics, click here.
Actually, I'd like to see Lehrer kick Cheney in the shins, something Maureen Dowd on Sunday felt the need to tell us she's twice in the past week been "close enough to Dick Cheney" to do, but each time refrained. But, shins-kicking would most certainly bruise "the appearance of fairness," which seems always among Lehrer's top concerns. Still, as MoDo wrote, "a girl can fantasize."
[Hustling off to ponder and compose my serious answer....]
#1 Posted by Liz Cox Barrett, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 02:11 PM
Liz, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Actually, the drama aficionado in me would really love it to be Dowd interviewing Cheney. Would they end up in a screaming match? Each sulking in silence? Bonding over how effete and effeminate Barack Obama is?
On a (slightly) more serious note, the what-to-ask question is slightly trickier than it first seems, I think, because the "outgoing" status of an outgoing official alters the traditional goal of news conferences and interviews: to gather information directly from officials in power. Though Cheney may (likely? almost definitely?) remain in a position to exert his influence over public policy--whether in the government or, more likely, in the private sector--his direct power expires in, now, less than a week. So what he thinks about that policy, about Iraq or Afghanistan or Gaza or the economy or what have you, matters much less now than it did on this date in, say, 2001 or even 2008. It matters, in fact, very little.
Which means that Cheney's answers to questions asked of him in an exit interview, at this point, tend to serve his legacy more than they do the American public. Which in turn means that interviewers need to be particularly diligent about asking questions that will tease out information, rather than Place-in-History-minded spin.
Which in turn, given the Veep's reticence in the "being forthcoming with information" department, pretty much leaves information-seeking interviewers to fall back on the A Few Good Men strategy of questioning: basically, to exploit a powerful person's ego to gradually anger him into answering a question. ("Surely, Mr. Cheney, someone as powerful and knowledgeable as yourself would have known that Saddam didn't have WMDs"...."But, Mr. Cheney, wouldn't someone as introspective as yourself have thought deeply about the mistakes you've made in your role?")*
Beyond that--and considering that Lehrer, as Liz noted, may feel constrained in the interview by his own pretensions to ideological balance--I don't see much new information coming out of tomorrow's conversation, only more spin. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.
* To those planning on playing a drinking game while watching tomorrow's interview: if Cheney ends up yelling "You can't handle the truth!" at any point in the conversation, take twenty shots. And game over.
#2 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 02:56 PM
Where's your undisclosed location? Ha!
But seriously, folks, I think there would be something to be gained from a protracted Dada-ist go around on Cheney's definition of torture, which, if you listen to his usual thoughts on the subject, is something like this:
1) Torture is against the law.
2) The things the U.S. does (shall we call them "enhanced interrogation techniques"?) have been ruled lawful by the administration's lawyers.
3) Ergo, the United States does not torture.
This is known as a cyclical argument. And it's one that's made nearly airtight by the administration's refusal to talk about said techniques, on the contention that they might be made less useful if the interrogee knew what was coming. Funny how that also makes it impossible to debate the moral soundness of the techniques.
It really would be possible--really!--to have a respectful go around on this that, while it wouldn't break new ground in informational terms, would expose the faults in the logic, both from both a rhetorical and (small-d) democratic standpoint. For example, one could ask about the wisdom of a determination of lawfulness resting on the decision of lawyers who serve at the pleasure of the executive.
An exchange on this front would be a fitting gift for posterity, which, as Megan rightly suggests, is what these exit interviews are largely about.
The NewsHour staff (of which, full disclosure, I was briefly a junior, junior member) also would do well to get ahold of Barton Gellman's "Angler," and to bookmark the juiciest passages--like the section where former Republican house leader Dick Armey explains how he only agreed to support the Iraq War after Cheney privately "bullshitted" him with a barrage of false information far more salacious than the false information the administration was presenting in public. I've never heard him asked about that particular account, and it might be a nice way into the obligatory questions of Cheney's role in selling the invasion of Iraq.
Another idea would be to ask how Cheney--and his estate!--might like to make use of President Bush's early executive order on the implementation of the Presidential Records Act that allows the Vice President, or his designee, or his heirs, or his heirs' designees to keep the records created by his office under wraps indefinitely. The old rules were that the records would be set free, with a few exceptions, after 12 years.
#3 Posted by Clint Hendler, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 04:13 PM
In my fantasy exit interview, Dick Cheney finally opens up about his support for same-sex marriage and/or civil unions. His position on the subject has been a welcome streak of gray in an otherwise black-and-white canvas, and an exit interview is the ideal venue to finally come clean about his complete disagreement with his party. Oh, wishful thinking...
#4 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Tue 13 Jan 2009 at 04:36 PM
It's the subpoenas stupid!
If he doesn't know already, Lehrer could simply look up the court records and find out what the subpoenas are for and how far they have progressed. Once prepared, and in the interest of being "fair and balanced," he could ask Cheney for his side.
Cheney may attempt to demur and Lehrer could remind him that he can talk quite freely about the matter since the cases are not in court yet. Cheney may even declare himself innocent to which Lehrer may ask, "Innocent of what?"
No Vice-President (ironic title no?) in U. S. history been served with as many subpoenas as this totalitarian.
In her essay on totalitarian thinkers, Hannah Arendt says their most significant quality is their "extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion, fact depends entirely on the power of the man who can fabricate it."
#5 Posted by Richard Reid, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 12:05 AM
I predict this will be utterly nauseating! Lehrer should save us all the pain of suffering through another of Cheney's tautological sledgehammering of the law and just ask him what he thinks of Roger Clemens, the new judge on American Idol, and the neo-magical realism of Roberto Bolano. I will also accept a re-enactment of the War on Terror in the format of a thumb war.
#6 Posted by Evan Woodward, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 09:54 AM
Well, the deed is done--Jim Lehrer has completed his interview with Dick Cheney. It will air on the NewsHour more fully tonight, but in the meantime, PBS has posted a nugget: in which Lehrer asks the Veep about today's Bob Woodward-penned, front-page WaPo article headlined, "Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official."
Lehrer quotes said official, convening authority of military commissions (and former Cheney employee) Susan Crawford, who told the Post, on the record, that Guantanamo interrogators had tortured an inmate. ("We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani....His treatment met the legal definition of torture.")
"She said, 'I think someone should acknowledge that mistakes were made and that they hurt the effort...and take responsibility for it,'" Lehrer said. "Do you agree with her?"
Cheney's clear anticipation of the question didn't seem to keep him from resenting it. Part of his answer:
"It's entirely possible there was a problem in terms of how one specific prisoner was handled. I can't claim perfection. What I can say is that, in terms of what the policies of the Administration were, both at the White House level and at the Defense Department, was that enhanced interrogation was okay--we had specific techniques that were approved by the Justice Department--but that we don't torture, and that we would not support torture from the standpoint of policy. That was not the policy of this Administration."
#7 Posted by Megan Garber, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 04:43 PM
I wonder why Cheney thought that the authority of the Presidency had been damaged by Nixon,
and why he thinks that the Presidency needed more power,
and what changes the Bush admin made were the most important,
and whether he is happy with the current power of the Presidency,
and if there are any changes to Presidential authority that he wanted to make, but was unable to accomplish.
#8 Posted by Remember the USS Liberty, CJR on Wed 14 Jan 2009 at 05:46 PM
Well, I just watched the "exit interview" of Dick Cheney by Jim Lehrer, and I could not be more disappointed with Mr. Lehrer. He did not confront Mr. Cheney with any substantive fact. How can he let Mr. Cheney say he protected the Constitution when there is such evidence of shredding by the Bush Administration (Americans were spied upon)? What about his bizarre penchant for secrecy (not even disclosing names of government employees)? What about the energy policy he has spearheaded for eight years that has driven this country into a ditch? What about wasting eight years driving in the wrong direction? What about the effect this has had on real Americans? What about separation of powers in the US government? What about partisanship? What about the notion of an imperial presidency? What about the role of the vice president? What about the thousands dead, the billions misspent? What about government conflicts such as Halliburton? What about President George Washington's admonitions? President Eisenhower's admonitions? Seems Mr. Cheney is still leaning on 9/11 as an excuse for EVERYTHING, including his personality changes! How can Mr. Cheney say we were kept safe when all Al-Qaida really wanted to do was destroy the U.S. economically and they appear to have done just that? We won't know from any interview by Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Lehrer actually appeared terrified of Mr. Cheney, visibly gulping before asking certain questions! Sad day for "journalism."
#9 Posted by "NewsHour" Viewer, CJR on Thu 15 Jan 2009 at 12:11 AM