Via the {relativeLink("unrepentantly bloodthirsty Frederick Maryland", "/2006/01/06#a1504"} at Demagogue:

I just heard Cheney's latest lie on NPR. Speaking at a fundraiser Monday in northeastern Ohio, Cheney mentioned Democrats' criticism of the administration's wiretapping and surveillance program. The vice president said that Democrats were advancing the position

"... that we ought to protect al Qaeda's right to communicate."

The Dems are saying no such thing and Cheney knows it.

I updated the link to point to the specific story, not just the rundown. In the story, at about 1:39, Cheney says:

This outrageous proposition, that we ought to protect al Qaeda's right to communicate as it plots against America, poses a key test for the Democratic leaders. Do they support the extreme and counter-productive antics of a few? Or do they support a lawful program vital to the security of this nation?

The very next time the vice president takes questions from reporters, the first questions should be easy:

Mr. Vice President, who are the "extreme and counter-productive few" you said wanted to protect al Qaeda's "right to communicate?" What are their names? Did you hear this in person or did you read about it? Where did it happen? Did these people support al Qaeda in other ways? Why won't you identify them?

Of course, there are no such people in American politics, something the vice president knows all too well, so he would not be able to identify them. That doesn't mean reporters shouldn't ask, particularly given last weekend's reminder that the president likes to use straw men in his own argments.

Make them name names. If they say "some people," ask them "what people?" If they say "the Democrats," ask them "which Democrats?" If he says his program is lawful when that has not been determined, ask him what court upheld it.

Make them get specific. It's largely the press's failure to force right-wingers to be specific that's gotten us where we are today. As Atrios showed today, their deceptions and fact-free schemes completely dissolve when they have to provide details. Isn't that what journalism is supposed to be about?