The thread title is clearly dishonest. For whatever reason posters like luci and Elv1s seem to think that by pointing to stuff in the speech that is (possibly) distasteful to some, that somehow makes it okay to deliberately lie in the thread title about what Cheney said in his speech. If there’s problems with the speech that BG has, he should have complained about those instead he chose to intentionally lie about what Cheney said in the thread title and then misrepresent it further in the OP.
Whether or not Evl1s and 'luci have valid beefs with America, the war in Afghanistan/Iraq, Dick Cheney, Kiefer Sutherland or the word “terrorist” at large shouldn’t be part of this thread, this thread should be about us exposing BrainGlutton’s lie and moving on, using it as a vehicle for a totally unrelated discussion just obscures the fact he’s blatantly lying. The rest of the issues brought up would be fine in their own thread, but to bring them up here just looks like a lame attempt to try and change the focus of debate to somehow make the OP’s blatant lies into some form of the truth.
Sigh … okay, if the word “criticizes” in the title had instead been “implicitly disparages”, would you then be happy? Gawdamighty, there’s no fucking way you could miss the point any more completely.
Would you care to actually discuss the *substance * of Cheney’s speech, and its implications for his conduct of his war, or is some random anonymous poster’s choice of words more on your level as a discussion topic?
Where’s that “Putz” smiley in our hour of need, anyway?
“possibly distasteful”…Oh, my that’s a beauty! What a delicate bit of backstabbing therein! You allow as how a steaming pile of lying crap is “possibly distasteful”, lying crap offered to support the insupportable, to justify and even enshrine the useless death of thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Well, yes, I must confess, I do find that “distasteful”.
But never mind that, you cry! Ignore the consequential and disastrous, let’s focus our wrath on BrainGlutton, who has the unmitigated temerity to point it out to us!
I’m a bit confused, when were you elected to the Thread Police? Who gave you such authority? And “blatantly lying” might apply if the subject had ever given even the slightest indication that he had some respect for the Geneva Convention and human rights . When would that have been? Was it when he rushed to criticize Fredo’s description of the GC as “quaint”? Could you link to such a defense, it seems to be lacking. If someone titled a thread “Fred Phelps hates gays!”, and there is no direct quote from Phelps (“I hate gays!”), would your knickers be all atwist? I suspect not, because Mr Phelp’s poisonous position is well known to all and sundry. As are Mr. Cheney’s positions well known. Now, if he had said “Cheney forthrightly defends the GC and human rights”, well, then he would most definitely be lying. But he didn’t, did he, buckaroo?
Again, who elected you to decide what the “focus” of the debate is supposed to be? I rather expected that was more the purview of the OP. And clearly the OP is inviting us to consider the VP’s speech as a towering inferno of blazing bullshit. Did you? Or would you have found that “distasteful”?
Well, I think there is more truth in that than untruth. The groups we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq use both terror techniques and conventions techniques-- ie, they target military and civilians. I can’t think of any group that we are fighting over there, whether Sunni insurgents, Shi’a militia, al Qeada, or Taliban that would respect the Geneva convention when capturing uniformed military personnel. And why should they? None of those groups is a signatory to the GC.
Calling them “terrorists” may be an oversimplification, but it isn’t far from the truth. When they attack US soldiers, they can’t (in my book) be called terrorists. But when the very same people turn around and target civilians, they sure as hell can be labeled thusly.
Isn’t it obvious? He’s got the moral perogative because he’s never broken a law! Not one! If that doesn’t make him a superior human being I don’t see what would.
Oh, and he also believes that the death penalty is proper for shiplifting.
Why are you bothering to argue with a sociopathic whining bitch? Not only will you accomplish nothing, but you won’t even get anything entertaining out of it.
Again, you’re playing into the useful fiction that every single person we detain is definitely a bloodthirsty psycho terrorist.
I doubt you really trust the government to magically just “know” who is actually responsible and guilty of this, so why can’t you see the problem with scoffing at anyone who we imprison demanding at least some modicum of decent legal treatment?
It’s fiction alright, but only in the sense that that isn’t what I said.
Is there a group that we’re fighting against in Iraq or in Afghanistan that has either stated its intent to adhere to the GC or that has demonstrated a willingness to do so? I’m not aware of any, but if you are, I’d be interested in hearing about it.
I’ve never been a fan of Cheney. But as **wring **so eloquently said it upthread… it simply isn’t necessary to make stuff up about him. He may very well hold contempt for the constitution and the GC, but there isn’t anything in this speech to indicate he does.
Bottom line, though, is that this thread is a joke. **BG **might as well have said: Dick Cheney took a shit today, therefore we must conclude that he shits on the Geneva Conventions.
Not at all, he shits into a toilet just like everybody else. What he wipes with, that’s a different matter. But if this thread is beneath your contempt, John, Heaven knows we won’t keep you, here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
And maybe this is just me, but so far as I’m concerned, “liar” is The Bomb of the Boards. You’re going to uncork that slur, you better be ready to bring it. A standard woefully unmet, and a pretty good egg overall (BG) slandered. All in half-hearted defense of one of the biggest buckets of pus ever to infest an administration.
I said this thread (the OP in particular) was a joke. Not a joke in the “ha ha” sense, but in the “pathetic” sense. Still, even pathetic falsehoods should not be left standing, unchallenged, on this MB.
See, the thing is, to me, a thread title doesn’t have the kind of significance that permits it to merit any designation so consequential as “pathetic falsehood.” It’s really like a sandwich board: “Basis for a discussion of [Topic X] within.” Clearly, such a discussion has evolved in this thread (“Topic X” being the question of the level of Cheney’s commitment to the Geneva Conventions, and his success or failure at conveying that to his West Point audience). One can argue that the basis for this discussion actually was there in the OP; therefore the thread title is adequately descriptive.
You have basically flat out defended the view that nothing Cheney says shows contempt for the Geneva conventions. But it does. It does in its assumption that all of the people we accuse of being terrorists actually are.
Many of the people in Gitmo right now are citizens of countries that do adhere to the Geneva conventions, and the majority of them were in any case not captured in the midst of acts of terrorism or on the battlefield.
You, as you often do, have overstated the case in the opposite direction. In this speech Cheney clearly thinks it silly that anyone we imprison for the accused crime of being a “killer” would ask for legal protection. Given that this is a man who has lied about who it is that was picked up and how, and that has seen the release of hundreds of people who, in fact were NOT “killers” and never should hve been treated extra-legally as such, this sort of ridicule is obscene.
No, he is telling the graduating class that they are fighting an enemy that isn’t a conventional army, and that won’t abide by the GC if they get captured. As I said before, that is more true than not-- is suppose there might be the odd insurgent out there who is dedicated to abiding by the GC, but he would be “odd” indeed.
You are conflating what he is saying in the speech with what he has done in the past.
Doesn’t matter what country they were citizens of if they were not fighting under the direction of that government.
Pffft. You, as you often do, are focusing on one sound bite taken out of context. One might just as easily argue that he is instilling in the cadets the need to look to the GC for guidance. Read the part I quoted about what he told the cadets to do when faced with this enemy. He told them to fall back on the instruction they had at the academy and the military tradition. Anyone who has been thru the academy will tell you that cadets are taught to fight honorably, and to adhere to the rules of war when fighting. During the last 5 years, it was the civilians in the administration, not the military who have insisted on playing fast and loose with the GC.
Since no one is asserting that actual insurgents respect the GC, what exactly is the point of this? The issue are the people Cheney referenced who supposedly demand fair treatment under the law, and supposedly wouldn’t give others that treatment.
What he is saying in the speech: i.e. ridiculing those who we capture who demand some modicum of legal justice in their treatment, is part of a defense of what he’s done in the past. This is a man who has spent years trying to shut these people up, frustrate every sane legal process for dealing with them. He cannot just comment on the issue of people asserting that they should have legal protections, scoffing at the idea, painting all such people that do this as bloodthirsty killers rightly imprisoned and denied due process, and not have it reflect on that issue.
You are trying to split so many hairs that you are just going end up bald on this one.
Many of these people were not fighting ANYTHING AT ALL: they were simply citizens of countries that are signatories to the GC. They were not captured on a battlefield. They are demanding SOME sort of legal treatment, and instead Cheney et al threw them into a black hole. And then ridicules them for demanding better, calls them killers and terrorists and people that would not respect the rule of law even though they are seemingly more often are not than are.
Sorry, I’m not getting sidetracked as you seem to want me to be. I’m focusing on what he said. He ridiculed those people who have demanded justice and who have been demanding that these people receive some form of sane justice. The venue for this was pumping up the troops to face off against insurgents, but who else could he possibly have been referring to when he talks about them trying to assert GC or Constitutional rights? How can he possibly make a broad remark like that on that issue and NOT have it reflect his attitude on such claims generally?
You guys want to argue about what Cheney has done? Fine. Start a thread about that. This was a stock graduation speech at West Point that you’re over-analyzing the shit out of.
What I see bad in this speech is the continued insistence that the war in Iraq is part of the war on Terror. A small part of it might be, but most of it isn’t.
But I guess some folks just need to have an outrage du minute, and this is it. Enjoy!
