Bashing Cheney

Six-plus years into the Bush/Cheney administration, the media pattern is as consistent as it is predictable: when Vice President Cheney gets out being spokesman for, and advancing the agenda of, the administration, all coverage must have a negative slant. So it was with little surprise that headlines, “news” stories, and editorials of the past two days have again cast him in a negative light.

• Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel: “Bush/Cheney Still Lie with Abandon”;

• AP: “Cheney repeats assertion on Saddam-Al Qaeda prewar links” (as picked up by the NY Times’ International Herald Tribune);

• CBS: “Cheney Sticks To His Guns”;

• KABC Los Angeles: “Cheney Insists al-Qaeda-Saddam Link Exists”;

… and there were more.

Cheney's offense? He had the temerity to speak the truth in an April 5 interview granted to Conservative pundit and radio host, Rush Limbaugh.

Why the broad and consistently negative coverage? Defense, pure and simple. It is liberal dogma that Saddam and al-Qaeda had no linkage, thereby providing a convenient rationale for simultaneously applauding efforts in Afghanistan, while criticizing the war in Iraq. If the left were to allow any back-slide in this position, one in which they have invested so much, their anti-Bush foundation could begin to crack and crumble. I can here them now: "If we let Cheney get away with this, the next thing you know, he'll be talking about the success of the troop surge in Iraq! Attack!!".

You see, the liberals have staked themselves to this position. They’ll now go to any lengths to mount a vigorous defense. So, in this instance, they deliberately changed the meaning of Vice President Cheney’s remarks. The “reporters" created a false Cheney straw-man, specifically so they could knock it down with their vicious critiques.

Where’s the proof, you ask? You’ll find it through a casual comparison of VP Cheney’s ACTUAL remarks, with those imagined in the articles and editorials linked above. The pertinent quote from the Limbaugh interview was this:

“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 booming 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.”

In reading, you will find that 100% of what the Vice President said about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was true: he WAS in Afghanistan before the Iraq war, both training and leading al-Qaeda terrorists; he DID flee to Baghdad prior to our attack of Iraq; he DID lead al-Qaeda in Iraq; he DID orchestrate a campaign do incite sectarian violence; and we DID kill him last summer.

So what’s the media’s beef with this litany? Apparently, not finding one, the esteemed media attributed additional thoughts to VP Cheney that were never uttered:

• The articles and editorials say VP Cheney linked Saddam and al-Qaeda. Read it again; he did not.
• The articles and editorials say VP Cheney said Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated before our attack on Iraq. Read it again; he did not.
• The articles and editorials cite 3rd parties and GAO reports that “prove” no Iraq-al Qaeda links existed, when those reports say no such things.
• The articles and editorials refer to the 9/11 Commission finding no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. Read the quote again: VP Cheney didn’t assert one.

So again the pattern is revealed. Bash Cheney; bash Bush; bash the administration. The media needs to be called on this. In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts”.