You’re funny, John!
Nah, too much dignity. Happily, you and I are not so burdened.
No, John, that won’t cut it, trying to pass it off as just a standard bloviation. A lot of the speech is, to be sure, the first several paragraphs are enough to stun a musk oxen. Half the newly minted shavetails must have lapsed into a coma by the time he got to the real stuff.
And shouldn’t he have? Doesn’t the situation call for a bit more than your standard flag-waving whoop-di-do? These are graduating officers, a good portion of them are headed straight for the Sandy Shitty. Don’t they deserve a bit of an explanation as to whom they are being sent to kill, and why?
And so he tried. Stacking inference upon innuendo, all based in a rock solid foundation of half-truth. You saw that, right? Dredged up some of the choicer bits (see above). Kind of crap he ought to be embarassed to sling at a Boy Scout Jamboree, but he laid it on thicker and thicker. They are the tatters and debris of sunken arguments, put a gun to your head, and you wouldn’t post them, they’re deep dish crapola beneath a Freeper.
And he shovels this shit out to our best and brightest. Oughta be ashamed, isn’t. So, OK, he only took a passing swipe at the GC. But once he got warmed up, he proceeded to demonstrate why he is an embarassment to reptiles everywhere, he did a high-board cannonball into a cess pool and spattered everybody.
He might just have said “We screwed the pooch, and its your ass, nasty break, good luck and goodbye.” At least that would have the dignity of truth.
At least he’s off that “lying thread title” kick now. Be grateful for that much.
You = disingenuous pussy.
The implication is that the Geneva conventions (and the Constitution, that which he swore an oath to protect and defend) are problems. That they are weapons terrorists use against us, rather than being the things that we use to show we are better than them. It is sickening.
Point taken, sorry for misreading the post.
Wow. Democrats really are going to blow the whole thing, aren’t they. See, nobody without a leftward agenda is going to take that rather bizarre interpretation. I think most people are going to take the plain meaning, with the subject of the sentence being “killers”, and the whole statement as a criticism of them. I think it’s fair to point out that Cheney has, in other statements, held the Geneva Conventions in contempt. But he has not done that here. You need five or six paragraphs of wiggly rationalization like Apos posted in order to get that out of this.
Well, yes it is, quite fair. Very nearly the point, don’t you think? If, as you strenuously insist, there is nothing contemptuous in this context, then what accounts for the difference? Has he seen the Light?
Which would surprise you more? A statement of respect, or derision? Given the past history that you acknowledge?
Ah, the former king of disingenuous pussies was getting jealous, I see.
To re-iterate:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8610866&postcount=63
Isn’t it time for another meltdown, epiphany, radical life change, and then a return to form?
I don’t think it was a statement of respect, either — not for the GC. It wasn’t even about the GC; it was about the “killers”. I don’t mean to drive home the point, but that’s what subjects of sentences are for. Objects, by definition, are merely predicative. So, yes it’s true that he has been contemptuous of the GC, but that does not imply that his every utterance is, just because GC is in the sentence somewhere.
Wow. (I’d just figure I’d match your condescending, sarcastic non-exclamation.)
The plain meaning is that these “killers” are bad men for whom the Geneva conventions and the Constitution are impediments to bringing them to justice. The plain meaning is that the Geneva convention and Constitution are things that terrorists use to protect themselves from us (and who wants to protect a terrorist?) rather than what we follow because we are a civilized society.
Look at it in somewhat wider context and I don’t think this is loony or bizarre. Cheney doesn’t need to make a statement about how the terrorists are our enemies. This fact is not in dispute. But he has consistently argued that the President has supreme authority to violate any law passed by Congress (treaties ratified by Congress have the weight and effect of law) or the Constitution to do what he wants.
Why else would he bring up the Geneva Conventions or the Constitution? He is not lauding them, he is not praising them, he is not defending them. He is placing them in the context of how the terrorists use them. Which is factually inaccurate. And by placing them in the hands of terrorists, they are guilty by association.
If I give a speech at West Point, and every time I mention the name of, say, Ronald Reagan, I make the sign of the Evil Eye, and spit on the podium, the transcript is still only going to demonstrate that I mentioned Ronald Reagan’s name x number of times. This leaves only the context of the speech itself (including its delivery) to provide insight into what I want the cadets to understand is my attitude toward RR.
Similarly, with the Vice President’s speech, context and semantics matter in descrying the intent of his message. It’s not my understanding that people use the term “delicate sensibilities”, except when they are engaged in delegitimizing a target (and perhaps casting doubt upon the notion that the target has any valid claim to a benefit; and/or that granting the benefit to such a target places the legitimacy of the benefit itself under a cloud).
I don’t have a strong enough stomach to watch a speech by Cheney, even if I could find it on the internet; perhaps someone who has seen/heard the speech in question can provide an impression as to whether his delivery was consistent with the above…
Hard to tell, when he orders a cheeseburger, it sounds like a murder indictment.
Well, let me ask you: was your question about Cheney or about the Geneva Conventions? In other words, would one answer it with “He brought them up because…” or would one answer it “The problem with the Geneva Conventions is…”? With the OP, same same. The subject is not the GC, but the K.
Well, I agree with that! 
Christ Almighty, did someone kill your dog? Why the hell are you so bitter? I mean, more than usual?
You used to be fun. Now you’re just bitter. Sad, really.
Well, you could send me some money.
Given his cardiac health, I’d say it’s more like suicide.
You’re right, Liberal, it is impossible for anyone to make their opinions about something clear without making it the subject of a sentence.
The BBQ pit is such a shitty place to post thanks to jerk-offs like Liberal. (Since you weren’t the subject of that sentence, I clearly expressed no opinion about you with that statement.)
Careful. If he gets too worked up he might cruise around the MB after you pleading for attention. From basking in the praise of his stable of drug-addled trolls to having to do their dirty work when they slink off for a time out, he’s come a long way in such a short time, baby.