Rush Gets Eleven Minutes To Stroke The Big Dick - Sub Title: Your Character Is Reflected by The Friends You Keep

The Big Dick Cheney is in the news again today. Of course, he is doing the usual spin doctoring. In case you missed the ego stroking, Rush Limbaugh "interviewed" the Big Dick Cheney for 11 minutes on 1 Feb. Not a single challenging question was asked.

What's that about a fair and balanced media? Indeed, Mr. Veep, you will be judged by the company you keep. Here's the questions - all of them - that Rush asked.I am not printing the text of Cheney's replies as I don't want to help them further "catapult" the propaganda. Why doesn't he participate in an interview conducted by Helen Thomas? Not brave enough I would suggest.

2:35 P.M. EST

Q And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. And as always, we are thrilled and excited to have with us the Vice President of the United States. With us for a precious few minutes, Vice President Dick Cheney. Welcome, sir. As always, we're happy to have you here.

Q So a couple of questions here to get started. You've seen so many of these State of the Union addresses. You've seen them from the chair you sat in last night for a number of years. You've seen them as a member of Congress. You've seen them as a Cabinet member. How have they changed the years in your experience?

Q Now, one of the themes today that I have seen repeated, and I think some elements are trying to cement this theme, is that -- and everybody that watched saw this, the Democrats refused to applaud the ideas of victory, freedom, security, those kinds of things. This is being positioned today as the result of the President's polarizing partisanship. In other words, the Democrats refusing to stand, refusing to applaud is the President's fault.

Q I'm sure you're sad about that.

Q Now, is that kind of thing -- I know the speech text gets out in advance. Do you think that that kind of response is planned and orchestrated; they go through the speech, go, "we will not applaud here; we won't applaud there"? Because it seems that it all occurs in such unison. I ask you this because I don't know. I'm just a viewer watching it like everybody else watches the President.

Q Would you call that speech cautious? It's been said -- the last word I would associate with it. I thought it was bold. I thought the statement of American values, the statement of American future was just -- I loved it. I don't see where people -- people in the media today called him -- he's cautious -- modest.

Q A couple of policy questions here before you go: In his focus on energy independence last night, for the first time in a long time, the President did not refer to drilling at ANWR. Is that off the table for you all?

Q The next question on policy is Social Security. The one time I recall the Democrats really standing and cheering in a partisan nature was when the President acknowledged that his attempt to reform Social Security last year had failed. What's the status of Social Security reform because the President followed that by saying it's still broken and still needs to be fixed. Is that still on the agenda?

Q You nailed it, they cheered the lack of progress. Great way to put it. One final thing, Iraq -- how is it going? Iraqi security forces and their training and their ability to take over some of the security roles as we draw down our troops, whenever that begins -- the incident involving the ABC crew has given birth now to the new idea that the Iraqi security forces just aren't prepared, and that whole story is a myth.

Q Senator Biden said on CNN last night that he had warned Bob Woodruff not to go to Iraq because the security forces there are just no good. It was dangerous -- more dangerous than it has ever been. Did Senator Biden warn you not to go before you last went?

Q Good. (Laughter.) All right, Vice President Cheney, thanks so much for your time. It's always a thrill to have you with us. We enjoy talking to you.

END 2:46 P.M. EST

Let me leave you with the words from the Big Dick Cheney, spin master, and follow up with a question for him - and everyone, for that matter.

But the fact is, it has gotten -- I think it's unfortunate the way it has gotten now. It's partly a reflection of the problem the President talked about a little bit last night in terms of just the tone in Washington. It has gotten bitterly partisan...And it's too bad. Nobody likes operating that way. At least certainly, we don't. But that's oftentimes a fact of life these days.

Au contraire Mr. Veep. Au contraire. Any you suckahs out their buying this spin? Not me. And specifically, I would suggest the derision and divisiveness has been built in, up and caused purposefully by the W, Rove and Co as a means grease the skids and further their fundamentalist agenda.

So, I just have a quick question, Mr. Veep If I may: If the republicans are in the leadership roles that allow them to retain the bulk of political power in America, who has the burden and responsibility to improve the tone in D.C. and reduce the divide you have created in our country?