Bush’s lies to large audiences are more judiciously phrased. But Dick Cheney lies to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his 15 million listeners. Cheney must be wearing an asbestos codpiece as tells his bald-faced lies to keep his manhood from being toasted with his pants afire.
This week we had another highly credible debunking of a major Bush-Cheney lie about the reason for invading Iraq. (See “Pentagon report debunks prewar Iraq-Al Qaeda connection” Christain Science Monitor)
The final proof that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s terrorist network operating out of northern Iraq wasn’t even initially part of al Qaeda, and never was sanctioned by Saddam Hussein was front page news.
This should finally lay to rest the lie about Saddam’s love affair with al-Qaeda, proving it was nothing but a neocon’s nocturnal emission.
Bush has refrained from consorting on air with the media’s rapid right wing. But his vice president apparently is free to make a fool of himself by jumping into the the cesspool of right-wing talk radio.
Dick Cheney has affection bordering on the perverse for the reprehensible hate-monger Rush Limbaugh and his fifteen million listeners.
There he is free to give invisible nods of agreement and approval while Rush lies his ass off and tells his slavering audience that liberals are selling out America.
On April 5th, on the heels of the release of a previously unknown Pentagon study laying out the facts which debunks the notion of a Saddam al Qaeda connection, Cheney upchucked the putrified lie about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein being in cahoots.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: … So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.
RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs — I forget the name of the committee — in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal ’08, is going to actually remove the phrase “global war on terror,” because they don’t think it’s applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they’re going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it’s just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He’s chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike’s a good man. He’s just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut ’em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He’s the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi’a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There’s no way you can segment out and say, “Well, we’ll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That’s not really, in any way, shape, or form related.” It’s just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.
As avid listeners hung onto his words and visualized their alter-ego Rush liplocking onto the veep’s mouth, Cheney pontificated about how withdrawing our troops would â€œplay right into the hands of al-Qaeda.â€
Those who have done a little reading know that the CIA suspected Osama wanted to Bush to win reelection in 2004 and that this is why he released a video condemning him just before the election.
How else could a rational observer take the timing of this release by the most hated man in America than as a calculated ploy to aid Bush in his bid for reelection?
There is certainly a good case for believing al Qaeda benefits from our staying in Iraq and continuing to inflame anti-American sentiment. Like many other controversial issues of the day, you won’t see such issues debated on Rush’s show.
Important questions challenging lies this aren’t even open for debate on the right wing media. Rush’s listeners will never ask probing questions of the liars like Cheney because Rush never does.
Bush’s lies are more temperate. For example he only suggests that the Democrats unpatriotic, and ignorant armchair generals trying to micromanage the war. But in fact Bush got rid of the generals who disagreed with him.
In their place he put generals like Petraeus who, for whatever reason, have decided to go along with his plan for a “surge”.
Bush now stylizes his lies for mass consumption because his audience is far larger. But to get the truth of what he really believes you have to pay attention to what Cheney says to the more limited audience on shows like Rush Limbaugh’s.
The good news is that media watchdogs, both on the internet and in the mainstream media, are now engaged in monitoring and reporting on what Cheney and others are saying to highly partisan audiences.