I didn’t say it was perfectly OK. Just that Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rice had a precedent, namely that of Mrs. Clinton and President Nixon. Doesn’t make it right, of course, but really, it’s just more of the same old, same old.
More of a quantum leap in more of the same old same old than just more of the same old same old.
So that’s what outrage fatigue looks like. OK, got it.
A new Yorker cartoon once showed a crook with a huge bag of money in a bar, next to him was a guy that just asked something to the crook, the crook then said:
*Of course it is stolen, but that happened in the past and we must move on. *
To be the same old, I would expect the lies to be made to protect the same objectives.
“All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing”
-Edmund Burke
Don’t tell me – let me guess:
You write the dialog for Mallard Fillmore. Right?
Are you refuting the fact that her responses tended toward “I don’t recall”?
In his defense, what’s reality ever done for him?
As I see it Cheney had to make a choice. He could tell the truth and admit he had been wrong. Or he could lie. And history has repeatedly shown when he lies, people will believe him anyway. The only downside is the morality issue, which let’s face it, doesn’t even appear to be on his horizon.
In Cheney’s case I think he simply says whatever will best serve his interests at the moment. If it happens to be true, that’s purely a coincidence and I doubt he’s even aware that he just told the truth.
A meaningless question, unless you are saying that we should put Cheney and Rice under oath.
Of course, for that we need investigations with real power. Republicans are willing to ignore worse real things in the current administration than what they imagined the Clintons did do.
The Clintons lost money on Whitewater. That kind of irresponsible incompetence Pubbies can’t stand.
Uh, not to speak for ETF, but there’s a fuck of a lot of difference between lying about (if that’s what HRC did) a land deal and lying about things like breaking and entering, and well, a fucking war! I mean, good Christ, we’ve got ample video of Rummy, et. al lying about what they said in regards to Iraq and AQ, whereas with the Clintons, we’ve got a bunch of he said/she said bullshit and speculation. There’s a a big fuck difference between the two. I don’t care if you think that the Clintons were lying, at most, they would have conned some people out of their money, we have people in charge of the government lying about the reasons why we went to war! A war which so far has cost the lives of over 2K Americans (and no telling how many Iraqis, but I don’t expect you to feel any sympathy for them) and roughly $300 billion dollars. And what have we gotten out of this war? $3/gallon gas, an unstable oil rich nation, and people being killed for buying mayo, for fuck’s sake! How, in the name of all things fucked does a lie about a land deal compare to that?
Christ, even if you think that we did the right thing by invading Iraq, you have to admit that we’ve fucked things up in the years since. Flame me all you want, but I’d have much preferred Shrub to have gotten blowjobs from underage girls than botch Iraq as bad as he has.
Fuck it, let’s say everything the Right claimed about Clinton was true, he ahd Vince Foster and about 40 other people killed, he scammed people about Whitewater, and bombed Yugoslavia as a “wag the dog” ploy, and allowed the CIA to smuggle coke into Arkansas. All of that still pales in comparison to what Shrub’s done. And to what end? Unlike Clinton, where you could say that we gained nothing from his actions, the death toll from Shrub’s actions have killed far more Americans than Clinton’s. Shit, just look at Somalia. Clinton denied the use of tanks for an operation that got a handful of Americans killed, while Shrub sent our troops into the longest war since Vietnam with inadequate equipment and insufficient numbers. Do you not see the difference? Or is it somehow all okay because Shrub’s a “Republican?” (I put Republican in quotes because no one who truly held to the Republican ideals would ever put their party before their country and Shrub so obviously has done [and yes, I hate it when the Dems do it as well].)
Holy heck, no! Don’t give the Democrats any ideas! Do you honestly want another Republican President? It is possible and wholly probable such a man would be better than our current executve (couldn’t get much worse, in other words…) but I’m not so sure on this point. We desperately need a split government right now. Such a strategy as you outline would be disastrous.
Maybe in 10 years the people will be comfortable of speaking about Bush in such a way. But right now, attacking Bush is like attacking Joe Six Pack voter, who will scurry under the protective wing of the Republican elephant in response.
As I listened to Cheney this afternoon on Meet The Press on MSNBC I kept wondering why anyone would give any credence to his assessment of the situtation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Time after time Russert played sketches from Cheney’s past pronouncements on affairs along that line and Cheney was wrong in every one of them.
The more I listened the higher my blood pressure and heart rate rose. They finally got clear up to 132/60 and pulse of 76 and those numbers are high for me.
I will say that Cheney is glib, suave, and positive that he is right in his statements. That might account for the latest poll that shows that some 43% of Americans still believe that Saddam was mixed up in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
The whole interview is available on line by Googleing meet the press.
Crikey! I’m a mere pup of 37 and my numbers aren’t that low! What’s your secret, Dave?
Live fast, die young. And if, by some accident, you don’t die…well, you’re young, aren’t you?
You know, if you thought the Nixon crack was a cheap shot, you could just say so…
Insinuating that everyone who responds to a question with “I don’t recall” is lying to hide an embarrassing fact, with the associated implication that each lie concerns an equally significant and important fact just makes you look pettty and, well, “mighty lame,” to coin a phrase.
And when you first mentioned “HRC,” I thought you meant Human Rights Commission. Please don’t ask me why; I can’t figure it out, myself.
Are you refuting the fact that Cheney has lied and continues to lie to the American people?
Because if you aren’t, perhaps you should start your own “HRC doesn’t recall” thread. I mean, instead of jumping up and down in this one yelling, “Look at me! Look at me! Don’t look at our lying Vice Prez! Look over here at me!”
And the distraction works too! I actually came into this thread to say that as I watched Meet The Press, I was heartened. The words “I was wrong” and “We were incorrect” actually slipped passed Cheney’s snarling lips. Of course, it was hard for him to say anything else in the face of old footage of him stating Sadaam was involved in 9/11 and that we would be in and out of Iraq in record time.
Cheney is delusional. From the transcripts:
Huh? If this is being greeted as liberators, I’d hate to see what they would do if they didn’t like us.
Technically this is true. We were initially greeted as liberators.
Currently however, we are being treated like the house guest who has stayed three years too long, crapped in the pool and roasted the family dog for Sunday dinner. Of course, there’s no mention of how we’ve acted, just that those ingrates aren’t sufficiently appreciative.
One thing about Cheney’s interview that pleased me, was that Russert called him out.
I’d say “You did a heckuva job, Tuckie,” but… 
No, really, thanks for saying what I was thinking, and saying it so well.