Story here. (Yes, the source is another lefty blog. The words in question are in Cheney’s speech, you can find them in the official WH transcript, but the WaPo unconscionably ignored them.)
All quite true, though completely irrelevant – but Cheney should be aware that there’s a situation here and he’s not helping matters any:
Never mind 24, how are the instructors supposed to deal with the VP himself undercutting their message?!
Not to mention the Republican presidential candidates (except for McCain). By Og, I never thought I’d live to see the day when this would even be a serious issue!
Well, okay, but you shouldn’t have made your thread title factually inaccurate. He critcized the “killers” for demanding protections that they themselve do not extend. It really doesn’t help just to make stuff up, especially when you’ve quoted a source that proves you wrong. Just saying.
BG, your title is an outright falsehood. Aside from the fact that it’s not “implied” in Cheney’s words at all, your title is simply, and it appears deliberately, false. Cheney simply did not criticize the Geneva Conventions to West Point cadets, either overtly or by implication. I think you knew this.
Your modus operandi on the boards often seems to be to post an inflammatory thread title and then do almost nothing in the OP except link to an article which, as often as not, only partially supports the wording of your own thread title. In this case you’ve just plainly made shit up. Frankly, it’s all kind of tiring. I don’t really see what you’re adding to the discourse.
You didn’t catch the tone of scorn in “delicate sensibilities”, apparently. It’s something akin to “quaint” and “obsolete”, to remind you of other descriptions of the Conventions from this administration.
BrainGlutton, you unspeakable swine! How dare…how dare…you lie…LIE! LIE You liar, liar, liar…in your thread title! Clearly, Cheney is displaying many and virile contempt for weak, namby-pamby pussyliberals and their blubbering, nancy boy “treaties” and “humane standards”! That is not, repeat,** not ** “criticism”!
Heres a definition from an online dictionary, which proves without doubt that I am smart enough to cut and paste something we both know because it conclusively proves something! Here it is:
See that, liar! Proves you are a liar! No decent, self-respecting Doper would stoop to discussing this thread on its merits, because it is posted by a thread title liar, and is therefore beneath the contempt of the lowliest noob.
Go lay down by your water dish, BrainGlutton! Bad BrainGlutton! Bad!
If you read that sentence more slowly, it’ll dawn on you that BG is worried about the soon-to-be unit commanders in Iraq thinking of Jack Bauer as a role model, and that Cheney is only reinforcing that view of how to handle “the terrorists”.
But if you’d rather just blast a poster for who he is rather than for what he’s saying, to save yourself the hard work of thinking, go right ahead. This is, after all, the proper forum.
And if you read Cheney’s speach, you’ll see that his isn’t doing that:
Frankly, I think it’s absurd to suggest that West Point cadets can’t differentiate between a TV show and reality. Anyone who watches “24” knows what a joke it is-- you simply can’t get from point A to point B in Los Angeles in 10 minutes. Ever.
As you typically say every one of the countless times you’ve been caught out but can’t force yourself to admit it.
The quote you mentioned did not specifically mention either the Conventions or 24. Therefore, using the same standard you yourself apply to BrainGlutton, you’re a liar.
Dude, you need to stop-- you’re cracking me up, and my sides are splitting!!
Where did I say it referenced either of those things? I said it wasn’t reinforcing the “24” ethos, which it explicitly wasn’t. It was reinforcing the military ethos. You know, the ethos of the guys who kept trying to tell folks like Cheney that torture was counterproductive. Maybe you’re confusing the military with the CIA.
Seems to be a lot more subtext and shadow in Cheney’s speech than any distinct theme, any carefully sculpted argument of strategy or morality. Its more symbolism than substance.
Jack Bauer gets a lot of press from the tighty righties these days, they like to associate themselves with that imagery, someone who isn’t afraid to go beyond the guideliness (crafted by wussies to thwart real men). The same symbolism appears all over American culture…Dirty Harry being the most spectacular victim of testosterone poisoning. But theres lots more.
I hear him urging that sort of ethos on the grads and it rings false, it implies approval for a rebellious, free thinking rule breaker from a born again authoritarian. He offers manly scorn for weakness, a virile and hard headed approach to enemies who are, by definition, the embodiment of evil*. So he’s not so much criticizing as he is sneering, for his premise, we waves the flag, for his postulate, he scratches his nuts.
*(Except for thread title liars, a whole 'nother category of the Damned…)
So, the “24” ethos can be seen in emanations and penubra of the speech. I get it now. It’s there because you want it to be there, not because it actually is.
