Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
[hank's litigation analogy of how Cheney's "I've never met you before today" gaffe would play]

Wouldn't it go like that, kind of?

So, you're saying that Cheney's statement was fake but accurate?

If this were in trial, a smart lawyer would play the clip from Cheney's "deposition" (not to be confused with a "deposition" in FB Land) while cross-examining him. The actual tone and language of the questions to Cheney might vary depending upon whether the smart lawyer was a folksy Matlock type or a cutting Joyce Davenport type, but he and his credibility would be toast when it was over. After setting him up with a bunch of questions about how careful and prudent he must be in his job just a heartbeat away from the Big Red Button, he'd either look like a liar or an idiot for saying what he did. Even to a Podunkville jury.

Thankfully for you, that isn't how it works, and he can get friendly types to carry his water for him. But, bottom line, he acted without thinking everything through, tossed out a bit of hyperboele that he thought would make his point for him, and now we're talking about his goof instead of Edwards's attendance record. Not a huge deal, but it's a lost gain for BC-04.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You're an ass. You want Cheney to be VP. Who here is running Michael Moore against him?

Given Kerry's lack of personality, I'd say you guys are. Your candidates were pretty much interchangable. Moore supplied the themes.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
After setting him up with a bunch of questions about how careful and prudent he must be in his job just a heartbeat away from the Big Red Button, he'd either look like a liar or an idiot for saying what he did.

You're in favor of "what do the polls say I should stand for today while I'm not in Cambodia" Kerry for that Big Red Button slot, right?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
So, you're saying that Cheney's statement was fake but accurate?

no I'm saying the "never met you" part was irrelevent to begin with. the other part stands.

bottom line, he acted without thinking everything through, tossed out a bit of hyperboele that he thought would make his point for him, and now we're talking about his goof instead of Edwards's attendance record. Not a huge deal, but it's a lost gain for BC-04.

As to credibility, sure it hurts, but only a little, because the meetings you show only make him have to change it "Barely met him."

and the only people talking about the "goof" are people who have their minds made up anyway. Hell the only undecided posting here is maybe sebastian, and he even says he's not. The point sticks Bobby.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Did I suggest he quit? No, my simple suggestion was elbowing back. Yours is just as fine, but how many Jordans are out there? For most of us, the only option is to elbow back.

Kerry is no Jordan.

You gripe a lot about not being able to get thru to lots of people. Did it ever occur to you that its you, not them?

You're telling me I'm unclear. Take the crack pipe out of your mouth.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
They already do.

Every night when Rather and Brokaw and Lehrer take a seat.

Well, equal time for Bush on this board, then.

http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/lovedocs.html

[Spree: Bush being Bush. Nothing to spin.]

TM

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by bilmore
You're in favor of "what do the polls say I should stand for today while I'm not in Cambodia" Kerry for that Big Red Button slot, right?

Yup. And, by the by, my post was a response to Hank's about how the statement by Cheney would play at trial.

You (well, maybe not you personally, but lots of Republicans) made the same "no convicitions/follows polls" critique of Bill Clinton. I'd say that he did a pretty good job as President. You wouldn't, I'm sure, but that's because you're wrong.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You wouldn't, I'm sure, but that's because you're wrong.

I'm never wrong. Sometimes the wrong facts happen, though.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sorry, no. I doubt it was empty when made. But, after four years of the stuff that Ty doesn't want to hear about, I think the initiative is sort of DOA.

You need to rephrase. You already said it was DOA before they set foot in the office. Just take the final step, put two and two together and admit it was a bullshit, empty promise.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Given Kerry's lack of personality...

What's the matter? You don't want to have a beer with Kerry?

TM

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You need to rephrase. You already said it was DOA before they set foot in the office. Just take the final step, put two and two together and admit it was a bullshit, empty promise.

TM

Are you confused today?

He made the statement in the campaign. Then came the final days of the campaign, the court fights, and the resulting and never-ending personal demonization from a majority of Dems. At that point, it was DOA.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm never wrong. Sometimes the wrong facts happen, though.

Board Motto!

S_A_M

P.S. I'd say "Bush Admin. Motto" -- but they won't usually admit that much.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
What's the matter? You don't want to have a beer with Kerry?

It would be too frustrating. "What are you having? I'll have one of those, too. No, wait, those people over there are having martinis. I should have a martini. I love martinis. Well, I didn't like them yesterday, of course, but I liked them before that. So, yeah, I'll have a Bloody Mary. I remember drinking Bloody Marys with Hemingway on the summit of Kilimanjaro during the war. He said - and this is seared - SEARED - into my memory - that he loved the taste of gin. So now, I always have a Tequila Sunrise in his memory.

No, wait. You're having a beer, right? . . . "

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
But that means you don't get the Gilligan posts

Of course I do

[Secret_Agent_Man]

or not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...t6.html?sub=AR

"The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

"Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had 'progressively decayed' since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of 'concerted efforts to restart the program.'

"The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years."


Is the silence on this report because it just confirms what all now admit? The administration's own report now shows (among other things) that Saddam had zero bio/chem stockpiles and was regressing, not progressing, on the nuclear front. This link is to an article -- but there are more analytical pieces in that edition too. "Gathering threat" my ass.

S_A_M

P.S. I would never say "Cheney Lied!", but he was, at the least, very seriously mistaken and does not wish to talk about it.