I knew that watching Dick Cheney’s media blitz would enrage me, but I couldn’t turn away.
As the former Vice President spoke to NBC News about his new memoir, In My Time, there were many moments that made my blood pressure rise. His stubborn refusal to admit there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, his cheap jabs against Gen. Colin Powell and his absurd revelation that his “undisclosed locations” included Camp David and his home- locations other officials would not have shrouded in secrecy.
But perhaps the most infuriating moment of the interview came when Cheney implied that Condoleeza Rice was not only incompetent but also unable to control her hormones. Speaking to NBC correspondent Jamie Gangel, the former Vice President defended writing in his memoir that Condoleeza Rice emotionally visited his office and admitted she lost an argument with him. The Atlantic reports that in Cheney’s recollection portrays Rice “as ‘tearfully’ admitting she had been wrong to urge Bush to apologize for wrongly alleging that Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake uranium in Niger.”
During their interview, Gangel pressed Cheney about the story saying, “You know that ‘tearfully’ is a loaded description for powerful women in high office. It’s going to be seen by a lot of people as provocative.” Cheney, seemingly unmoved by the implication said, “It’s an accurate description.”
Regardless of the glaring issues of accuracy, Cheney’s retelling of his inside tensions with then Secretary of State Rice are not just about his disrespect to her. Rather than leave his differences with Rice to their policy disputes he includes a shot at her as a woman. By portraying her as an erratic emotionally charged woman in contrast to his elusive cool, Cheney makes Rice into a character instead of as opposed to a colleague worth a logical debate.
What do you think of Cheney’s depiction of Rice as tearful? Is it an accurate description or is the former Vice President implying something more?