Jesse Taylor takes Julian Sanchez’s reasoned description of Cheney’s intentionally misinterpreted coments, and basically, in more than one hundred words, states that he is too stupid or too partisan to understand even Sanchez’s thorough explanation.
Cheney stated:
Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
Jesse, in his infinite wisdom and larger arrogance, breathlessly posits:
Without the last clause (from “and that we’ll fall back” through “a terrible mistake for us”), here’s what Cheney said.
1.) You vote John Kerry into office.
2.) Because he’s in office, we will be hit by a terrorist attack.Here’s what he said with the “exculpatory” evidence.
1.) You vote John Kerry into office.
2.) Because he’s in office, we will be hit by a terrorist attack.
3.) After the terrorist attack that only happened because he’s in office, he’ll fuck up how he handles it.Rather than saying Kerry beats his wife, Cheney made the far more responsible statement that after he beats his wife, he won’t clean up the house properly. I’m sorry I was ever offended.
A.) Why would anyone remove the last clause? As Jesse recognizes, it is a clause, and thus part of a sentence, so the only reason to remove the clause is to distort Cheney’s statement.
B.) Since you admit the clause is part of the sentence, why is including it considered ‘exculpatory’ evidence. Shouldn’t it just be considered part of the damned sentence? If you read the entire sentence, there is no NEED to clear Cheney of any guilt, as he said nothing wrong.
C.) Your second formula under the what you have falseley labeled ‘exculpatory evidence’ is flawed. The correct formula for what he said is:
1.) If we vote John Kerry into office
2.) and if we get hit again
3.) we will respond inappropriately
Nowhere in Cheney’s sentence did he say that if you voted for Kerry/Edwards would we be hit again. And that isn’t going to change no matter how stupid Jesse is or becomes.
Jon Henke
I think this is a perfect example of the care with which politicians must watch their words. Even a poor formulation–and it was–can be exploited by people more interested in partisan sniping than careful, reasoned discussion.
For the love of mike, the administration has been saying for YEARS that we could be hit again anytime. And they’ve been saying for MONTHS that it’s Kerry’s reactive approach that’s wrong.
One reading of Cheney’s statement fits with those statements. The other–the one assumed by Jesse, et al–does not.
But it makes Cheney look bad, so OF COURSE they ran with it.
I often wonder if the extreme partisanship on the left side of the ‘sphere is a result of being “out of power” as it were, or something else.
I’d like to think it’s the result of being out of power, because these really are genuinely bright people. But, I guess their position is “damnit, there’s no time for nuance…there’s an election to be won!”
Karen
Even if you take the worse possible interpretation of Cheney’s statement, how is this different than what the Democrats have been telling us the last year and a half, “We are less safe than we were”?
James
Anyone who thinks this was just a poor choice of words is a fool.
Dick Cheney is a smart man, and he knows the associative power of words and images. This is another example of White House officials saying something that, while technically defensible after you parse the various clauses and phrases, was clearly intended to leave the impression that voting for Kerry equals another terrorist attack. It was a speech, not an essay, and as such is not subject to careful, literal scrutiny by the audience.
It very closely resembles Cheney’s repeated assertions of ties between Saddam and 9/11, for which no single bit of evidence has yet emerged. Did he actually say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? Never. But he DID repeatedly utter the two in the same sentences and peppered justifcations for war with mentions of the two, clearly and intentionally leaving the impression of an association.
This is not an accident. Earlier in the year, a full 53% of the country believed that Saddam was tied to the 9/11 attacks.
It’s masterful propaganda, really, and this latest comment fits perfectly with a pattern of subtle deception.
Jon Henke
Dumbass….78% of the American public believed Saddam was likely involved on 9/13/01. That was before Iraq was mentioned at all.
Obviously, the American public does not use obscure administration press conferences as the basis for their opinion on this matter.
James
Well done, Jon. I stand corrected. There’s no connection whatsoever between the frequent public utterances of White House officials and public opinion.
Completely pointless…
How about the Administration story after we knew exactly who actually did attack us, Jon?
Bruce
No matter how stupid he becomes… Priceless
Terry
Even the extremely liberal Los Angeles Times thinks Jesse is full of shit on this issue:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-cheney9sep09,1,839644.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
The Lonewacko Blog
As I tried to point out at Reason, let’s try this: Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again…
Note the “if,” followed by the “then.” You don’t need Noam Chomsky to point out that “the danger” is a consequence of making the “wrong choice.” But, it would help. Noam, are you out there?