Cheney’s mendacity knows no bounds

What’s always bothered me most about Dick Cheney isn’t his dishonesty, it’s the ease with which he tells obvious and transparent lies. The VP seems to have an almost pathological disdain for veracity, and thinks so little of the public that he has no qualms about making ridiculous claims.

Take Cheney’s comments at a press conference yesterday in Iraq, for example.

“Well, this is no operational link. But there was, as I recall from looking at it, extensive links with Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was the organization headed by Zawahiri, and he merged EIJ with Al Qaeda when he became the deputy director of Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden’s number two. Now, was that a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Seems to me pretty clear that there was.

“But it’s a question — I would urge you to go read the report. I know ABC reported on it. If you dig into the report in depth, I think you may find that there was an extensive relationship with a broad range of terrorist groups, that he was a state sponsor of terror. And I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”

A reporter followed up, saying, “So, you think there was a direct link between Al Qaeda.” Cheney responded, “You heard what I said. I was very precise.” When the reporter noted that Cheney was not, in fact, precise, the VP ended the press conference.

We’re well past the point at which Cheney’s mendacity is surprising, but it’s nevertheless striking to see someone, anyone, be so brazen in trying to deceive people. Cheney still believes it’s “pretty clear” there was a “link between Iraq and Al Qaeda”? Just a few days after his own Pentagon proved otherwise?

It’s one thing to get this wrong before the war — as Cheney did — when there may have been at least some conflicting intelligence. It’s something else altogether for the VP to make demonstrably false claims five years later, when everyone with a pulse knows he’s lying.

The guy just doesn’t care. He never has.

On the same subject, during the same exchange, Cheney cited the work of Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard. Hayes, of course, is perhaps best known for arguing incessantly for the last several years that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly connected to al Qaeda. It earned him a reputation for being a bit of a far-right oddball, but his constant and aggressive advocacy, resisting reality at every turn, made Hayes a favorite of Cheney, who offered the conservative writer unprecedented access for a flattering new book.

The problem, of course, is that Hayes’ work has been thoroughly debunked, and is no longer taken seriously by anyone outside the Vice President’s office.

But the circus continues. Yesterday, Hayes, traveling with Cheney, completed the incestuous conservative circle — Cheney cites Hayes to argue he’s right, and Hayes cites Cheney to argue they’re both right.

Sitting in the U.S. Embassy just blocks from the bombed out headquarters of the former Iraqi Intelligence Service, Vice President Dick Cheney said today that a new Pentagon study issued last week confirms Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq supported a broad range of terrorists groups, including al Qaeda. But he dodged a question about why the Bush administration has failed to discuss the report in public, saying that the report was relatively new and that he hadn’t had time to talk to the press office about it. […]

The Pentagon report has been widely mischaracterized as refuting Bush administration claims that Iraq supported jihadist terror, including al Qaeda. Those reports are incorrect.

These guys have completely given up on the notion of shame. It’s kind of sad to watch.

Dark Lord Cheney is “Osama bin Laden’s number two.” The Bush Laden family continues its Global War On Truth.

I think that the new strategy for “the war” in Iraq should be to go from house to house checking under beds for “Islam-O-Fascists.” I’m convinced that I have one hiding under my bed.

  • Cheney is the most dangerous of liars. This dangerous type will disseminate information not necessarily to convey a falsehood but to hopelessly obfuscate the truth.

    Cheney has no honor and no respect for truth. And he does not have respect for you.

  • Actually, there is 1994 a tape of Cheney telling the truth. Too bad he didn’t listen to his own words of wisdom.

    Maybe that’s why the “southern strategy” of allying with religious nuts works: all Republicans are liars to begin with.

  • I heard Cheney on NPR yesterday.
    Sounded like his speech is starting to slur.
    The distinction between phonemes seemed blurry.

    I suspect his intellect is decrescent.
    Couple that with his native mendacity, and what remains is indeed “sad to watch.”

  • These guys have completely given up on the notion of shame. It’s kind of sad to watch.

    Actually, I would slightly disagree with that.

    These guys have never even considered the notion that they should be ashamed of themselves. The Dick appears to have never even approached the concept of shame, ever.

    It is the supposedly liberal mainstream media which has completely given up on pointing out that these mendacious liars are unfamiliar with the notion of shame. And that’s even more painful to watch…

  • I think whoever the dem nominee is should mention Dick Cheney’s name along with Bush’s EVERY TIME Bush is mentioned. “George Bush and Dick Cheney pushed tax cuts for the wealthy.” “George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s push for war”, “George Bush and Dick Cheney are listening to your phone calls”, etc.

  • You’re being too hard on Cheney. He was, in fact, very precise by not claiming a direct, operational link. He just said there was a link.

    By the same logic, Dick Cheney is linked to Al Qaeda. As CEO of Halliburton, he did business with Iraq; Saddam Hussein supported Egyptian Islamic Jihad; Zawahiri merged EIJ with Al Qaeda. Therefore, Cheney is an evildoer.

    BTW, I’d have thought you’d highlight Cheney’s comment about how the Middle East is unstable because repressive regimes are holding back freedom. How is that not a reference to Saudi Arabia??

    As for state sponsors of terror, see United States in Latin America, 1890-1990.

  • Cheney WAS precise.
    The same way Clinton was precise when he defined “is”.

    Both men found such semantic dexterity to be a virtue rather than a sophomoric party trick.

    There was a link between Iraq and Al Queda. Just not before the invasion of Iraq. He didn’t say WHEN the link existed. He was very precise.

    As soon as the seven year olds start asking him to empty his pockets, the magician leaves the stage, humiliated, grumbling to himself that no one appreciates his art.

  • The only consolation I have is that these ‘steal & spend’ trolls are in their sixties and seventies and don’t have long to live; if it weren’t for a pacemaker, Cheney would have been six feet under a long time ago!

  • Steve:

    Your definition of truth (facts based on verifiable evidence) is so 20th-century. The modern conservative understanding of truth is any statement that supports what I want you to believe.

  • If Cheney is slurring, maybe he had a small stroke- in which case he is unfit for duty and should step down. We can only hope. C’mon Dickie boy take an early retirement and go to asshat island…I mean Dubai.

    We all know the first casualty of war is truth- but they waged a pre-emptive war on the truth.

    Cheney’s logic is the same as “there is no Operational link between Cheney and KBR-Halliburton ” in the rape case and , but Cheney sits on the board of directors so he has tacit approval of the goings on of this no-bid, unnacountable company.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4027734

    evidence dissapearing….hmm how convenient.

    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=3997727&page=1

    defraud the government? oooh ya can’t get away with that, but gang rape is okay

    Dick Cheney, I hope your lesbian daughter’s child urinates on your face as you draw your last gasping breath you traitor!

  • The problem isn’t Cheney. It’s that the media and conservatives give him credibility. As long as he can keep lying without being questioned by the media, why wouldn’t he continue?

  • as far as cheney is concerned, he isn’t lying: this is actually an indication that he’s a psychotic personality, not a conscious awareness that he is misleading.

    toowearyforoutrage, clinton’s issue with “is” was very precise: “is the president having sex” is a very different question than “was the president having sex.” by the time he answered the question – and putting aside whether a blowjob is having sex – he was no longer, uh, intimate with lewinsky.

  • “But there was, as I recall from looking at it, extensive links with Don Rumsfeld. Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq and did business with Saddam Hussein, and he emerged in the Bush Adminsitration when he became the Secretary of Defense, and as associate of George Bush’s number two. Now, was that a link between Saddam Hussein and Dick Cheney? Seems to me pretty clear that there was.”

    Next time we don’t go to war with bombs smarter than the people who order them deployed.

  • I had kind of forgotten about Cheney. He was out of sight/out of mind for a while til he popped up in Iraq. I remembered what Hillary Clinton said a few months ago: Nobody pays attention to Cheney any more. And that’s what I was thinking when I heard him say those outrageous things yesterday: Who Cares what this piece of turd has to say about anything. It’s all lies anyway. Unfortunately, he still has the capacity to do considerable damage before he goes away, hopefully in disgrace.

  • Cheney is a clever SOB, he knows that enough people will fall for his shit for him to get away with it, and more importantly, he knows that the US media will never, EVER, call him what he is: A liar.

    No, they’ll keep asking him to come on their shows, and they will “try” to pin him down, and he will laugh at them as he lies through his teeth, knowing that he is beating them because they are nothing but a gaggle of retarded whores, people who think that getting “access” is more important than getting at the truth. Tim Russert, the king of bobbleheads, is their best outlet for their lies. He assumes everything is off the record unless they say otherwise, and they use him like a weapon against their true enemy: Us.

    I’m sure no one from our poodle-media will ever ask Cheney if the US is connected to terrorists, since the group now calling itself Al Qaeda in Iraq was in US/Kurdish controlled territory before we invaded. And what about the PKK? They’re terrorists, according to us, and yet we let them operate as long as they’re attacking our enemy Iran. The poodles will also NEVER ask if the Reagan administration could be considered a “state sponsors of terrorism” since they helped Saddam make and use poison gas.

    And of course the poodle-media will never confront Cheney with his own lies about how he personally helped Saddam quite a bit, not that long ago

    During the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney adamantly denied that under his leadership, Halliburton did business with Iraq. While he acknowledged that his company did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, Cheney said, “Iraq’s different.” He claimed that he imposed a “firm policy” prohibiting any unit of Halliburton against trading with Iraq.

    “I had a firm policy that we wouldn’t do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal,” Cheney said on the ABC-TV news program “This Week” on July 30, 2000. “We’ve not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn’t do that.”

    But Cheney’s denials don’t hold up. Halliburton played a major role in helping Iraq repair its oil fields during the mid-1990s that allowed Saddam to siphon off funds from the oil-for-food program to fund a weapons program…

    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1012-33.htm

  • “It’s kind of sad to watch”? Is that all you can say? How tepid can you be.

    The hallmark of this regime has been shameless mendacity from even before it installed itself into office. Compassionate conservatism? Hokum. “A uniter not a divider?” Really? Global warming? First it existed then it didn’t. 9/11? Osama? The selling of the war? All that progress we keep making? The surge? The economy? The environment? In all these areas we have been told nothing but lies for eight years. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows better than to believe anything coming from this corrupt, criminal regime. At least call it disgraceful.

    Everytime the brain dead obedient media takes anything Bush or Cheney say seriously, which they do all the time even when the statements don’t pass the laugh test, it perpetuates the shamelessness and plays to the gullible. The whole house of cards is falling around us as the economy melts down, and oil prices know no ceiling, and it’s sad to watch as Rome burns, and the government fiddles with the facts.

    Now ask me how I really feel.

  • I just went to the website of the VP to read the entire press interview (?). Guess what… they already changed it. The final comment by the press was changed to
    ” Yes, you were very clear.”

    Rewriting history as it happens – creating their own reality.

  • You can feel safer when Cheney is out in the public and lying as he usually does. When he is not around, then worry because I guarantee he is in some back room drawing a plan to sap common Americans of the little wealth they have. I am reminded of the holiday dinner he missed last year when his secretary said he was hunting and the press had a field day trying to figure out who he would shoot. Then he was a week out of the hospital after getting his heart shocked to get it back in rhythm and ask anyone who has ever had it done, you do not go hunting the next weekend. Funny thing that it just so happened that OPEC was meeting at the same time. Really, hunting?

  • “maryo said:

    I just went to the website of the VP to read the entire press interview (?). Guess what… they already changed it. The final comment by the press was changed to
    ” Yes, you were very clear.”

    Rewriting history as it happens – creating their own reality.”

    hate to burst your bubble but that is wrong.

    According to a press release by businesswire.com, on March 17, 2008 @ 6:19 PM EDT. , this is how it was said.. (Steve Hayes was asking the question) BTW,

    Q So you think there was a direct link between al Qaeda —

    VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: You heard what I said. I was very precise.

    Q Yes, you were.

    VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: Thank you all very much.

    Link to the entire release: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080317006594&newsLang=en

  • Racer X.
    There is no way they weren’t. When sanctions were announced against Iraq, all companies simply ran their accounting through numerous other subsidiaries in other countries. A corporation like Halliburton has a ‘subsidiary’ in almost country that they have a physical presence in, hundreds i am sure. So the US division of Halliburton sells goods to a division in Norway or Canada or UAE. Because they are all under the same umbrella, it’s considered a stock transfer, then that segment whose country doesn’t have sanctions against Iraq makes the actual sale.

    Now here is were it gets really interesting. Nothing changes with the actual product. If it was built in Lafayette, shipped to Houston via truck, shipped to Iraq via Chinese barge and trucked to Oilfield A. After sanctions were imposed, the product will follow the exact same route because on paper the sale has changed and instead of US company owning the product at the point of possession change, a Norwegian company owns it.

    The best part of the whole deal is this, the sale is run through the country with least amount of tax liability. So Norway and Canada would probably be out, so they use Indonesia.

    The US loses the mark-up portion of income tax and the Indonesia gains it. When you apply this to all the goods that could have been taxed correctly in the US, it is a huge amount of money the US tax system loses. Iraq pays a premium for sanctioned goods and Halliburton as a whole makes a little extra for the effort.

    I work in tax and this is true for all companies. From McDonald’s to Levi Struass to Halliburton to Chevrolet. It’s a shell game like everything else. If you actually stand up and do what is right, your competitor simply grabs the market share you had before the sanctions. And of course it’s perfectly legal.

    I doubt any multi-national company doing business with Iraq had sales/income fall after the sanctions were implemented.

  • @ScottW #22
    …in almost country [sic] that they have a physical presence in, hundreds i am sure.

    Uh, currently there are only approximately 190 countries on this planet. And the Federal Government has 700+ military bases in at least 130 of them. Supranational corporations like Halliburton and KBR benefit greatly from contracts in support of our imperium that spans all the continents except Antarctica.

  • Cheney and the PNAC crowd are responsible for 90% of our problems today. Imagine Cheney as McCain’s Veep?

  • You must not have read the Pentagon report. I have. Three times. I did not read what Hayes wrote, but if you actually read the report, the unmistakable conclusion is that Saddam was a serial sponsor of international terrorist groups and that included sponsorship of Al Qaeda affiliates and a long-standing relationship with Al Qaeda co-leader Zawahiri.

  • if we had declared on ourselves .. how much different could it look that it looks like now.. trapped .. no way out .. bleeding cash .. bleeding solidiers .. wearing out equipment .. crumbling economy …

  • Comments are closed.