Ah! That explains it! Thanks!
What a hypocritical coward. “Taken out of context” is Republicanese for “It’s true, but I’m still gonna deny it.”
Kind of reminds me when in a courtroom, a judge strikes something from the record, or tells the jury to not take something into account. So a lawyer can say something, get admonished, but still get his point across. Then the judge tells the jury to forget about what was just said, even though we know that ain’t gonna happen.
'scuse grammer, no coffee yet.
Right. I also didn’t mention that I was doing it in a “Quasimodo voice”.
Back to the thread…
I just heard Condi Rice, in defending Cheney’s comments, say (as well as I can remember – I was in the kitchen at the time) that “nobody could have predicted the actions of the insurgents”. Erm… What? :dubious: My friends and I were talking about exactly that before the war started! Gosh, maybe I should get a job in National Intelligence! I haven’t checked, but I’d bet that it came up on the SDMB. Gosh, maybe I should get a job in National Intelligence!
Cite?
Sorry about the duplicate National Intelligence line. Rearranged, and forgot to delete.
Cite? 
After his little outburst on the floor of Congress a while back, I’ve come to the conclusion that Mr Cheney doesn’t feel the dignity of his office is worth voiding his musk sacs on, let alone worth upholding. At least Clinton only disgraced his office in private.
Fuck clinton.
He was too pussy to inhale.
This current administration continues to insult my intelligence. Now they prey on our emotions regarding the vulnerability we all feel to some degree post 9-11 with this drivel.
I am so sick of **Bush the Great Uniter ** attempting to finally be elected by riding the coattails of our national tragedy. Sure, he may get some credit for uniting us after 9-11, but we were so devastated in the face of such inhumanity and so hungry to comfort and be comforted by our fellows that a monkey could have united us. And how dare they tell me how safe they make me when they have *squandered * our position of good-will in the world community. I don’t feel safer with you Mr. Bush-Cheney …I feel very alone.
:smack: Oh, I forgot, a monkey did.
Bush-Cheney :wally
Aren’t statements like this a little reckless? It kind of strikes me as the equivalent to me changing my website’s slogan to:
Slacker’s Website - Completely Unhackable!
It doesn’t take much to convince the bad guys to be bad.
An additional fuck Clinton as well, he no longer is the president, we need to worry about current events, not a relic of the past.
Cheney: So Tom (Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa) you got a nice state here. Real nice. Be a shame if something happened to it. Wouldn’t it boys? (Big guys following them in sunglasses grunt and nod)
Vilsack: I’m not sure I know what you mean.
Cheney: Well Tom, it’s like this…you’re a Democrat right?
Vilsack: Of course.
Cheney: Right, right. And I respect that. I really do. I got Dems workin’ for me at Halliburton. Great guys. Really good with the people, but…not exactly tough. You know what I’m sayin’?
Vilsack: Well now-
Cheney: I mean, not the kind of guys you’d want runnin’ things in a bad…situation.
Vilsack: I don’t think-
Cheney: Sure, sure. Hey, you’ve got kids, right?
Vilsack: Yes, but what does that-
Cheney: Me too. I hate it when something happens to a kid. Breaks my heart, it really does. See Tom, the Boss cares about kids too and he’d never let anything bad happen to them, but well, that doesn’t exactly matter if he’s not reelected, does it?
Vilsack: …
Cheney: Now, I’m sure whatsisname, Kerry, cares about people too, but let’s face it. He can’t guarantee that nothing bad’ll happen in Iowa, or God forbid, to your kids. You know what I mean?
Vilsack: yeah.
Cheney: Right. Now the Boss, he’s happy to make sure you guys here have a nice quiet few years, but…he needs your support Tom. Otherwise he’s liable to get…upset, and then there’s just no tellin’ what might happen. Hey, just think about it. I’m sure by November you’ll make the right decision. We wouldn’t want you making any wrong decisions, after all.
No, I’m talkin’ bout the FULL modo, goddamnit: Nostradamus, Knute Rockne, all that stuff. They had a hunchback that played center.
First off, Cheney did not say there WILL be a terror attack if Kerry is elected. He said the danger is that there will be one. It might sound subtely different, but it does make a huge difference.
It’s important that you make the right decision about smoking. If you choose to smoke, the danger is that you will die much earlier than you would if you don’t smoke.
It’s important that you make the right decision about smoking. If you choose to smoke, you will die much earlier than you would if you don’t smoke.
Big, big difference.
I’m firmly in the BFD camp on this. Unless you think that both men would do exactly the same thing as president, surely one man’s policies will put us in more danger than the other’'s will.
I can say: Our policies will make you more safe than theirs will.
or
I can say: Their policies will make you less safe than ours will.
You might argue about whether it makes more sense to frame things positively or negatively, but it’s still the same message.
That was entertaining, Photopat. Thanks!
Of course its just a matter of interpreting the words correctly, John M.. Chency clearly has an open mind on this issue, he says we are in more danger if we make the wrong decision, and all us liberals just assumed that he meant Kerry as the wrong choice.
If he had, of course, then the charge of fear-mongering would have some substance. Unless it was just one of those off-the-cuff remarks so much encouraged by this open and candid administration.
Does it help get out the average American vote, or the Bubba vote, or both?
Or is there even a difference now that the middle has moved toward Bubba?
Granted. I just ran with Fox’s headline as that’s where I first encountered the story. And, since this is the Pit I didn’t feel the need to be precise.
On the compementary hand, Mr. Cheney’s comment is nearly empty w/o it’s implication that if we make the right choice the danger would not be “that we’ll get hit again.”
There’s another alternative. I doubt if there actions would be “exactly the same.” Yet, I realize that in reality,
neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry will be the one making arrests and translating intercepts;
the bulk of those who actually do this work will be the same no matter who gets elected;
neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerryy be the ones arranging passports and travel for murderers to be;
the danger of terrorism is not a short term thing (some effects of what has happenned during Bush’s term will not be felt here for a few more years).
So even if the guys don’t do the exact same things the forces at play are not responsive quickly enough for what happens in the near term to have agreat deal of effect in the near term.
IOW,
I think that we’re likely to “get hit” in the next 5-10 yrs no matter what happens in the next 4 yrs. The wheel is already in motion. The die is cast. The fault lines in the cookie have already formed.
Where I hope the differences between the two sets of policies come into play is in the long term.
Sure, sure you could. However, “safer” is a different thing than “get hit.” Safer refers to relative probability. ‘Get hit’ refers top something specific.
Cheney clearly implied that we won’t be in danger of gettin hit if we make the right choice in Nov- which is utter bullshit.
Sure things can be tweaked a little this way and that, but the danger of ‘getting hit’ in the next few years is pretty much what it is. It was determined by forces that were in motion before GWB became president. And the forces put in to motion since he’s been PotUSA will shape events even after he has left the office (in 2005 or 2009).
What we can do something about is the likelihood of getting hit in the the upcoming decades.
All that said, I’ll also say that my objections are about style as well as susbtance. I think that the style was tawdry and demeaning to the office.