Ken Layne has been shrill for several weeks, and that by itself is fine. I would still rate a shrill Ken Layne in the top three or four people I read online that I would like to get hammered with. However, to be shrill, one does not have to be stupid or deceitful, and that is the case with this post (Ken is bolded, Cheney in italics):
Cheney is now saying Russia deserved the Beslan massacre … because Russia didn’t join the latest Iraq War:
I think what happened in Russia now demonstrates pretty conclusively that everybody is a target. That Russia, of course, didn’t support us in Iraq, they didn’t get involved in sending troops there, they’ve gotten hit anyway.
What will the hateful, grave-robbing sonofabitch say next? Tune in tomorrow!
You have to be inhaling hospital grade ether to interpret Cheney’s remark the way Ken did. What Cheney was CLEARLY stating (and Ken is not forgiven for parroting Shuster’s illogic) is that regardless of what you do, free nations will be a target.
Ken is a smart fellow, and it is only his hatred of Cheney and the Iraq War that is blinding him, but there really is no other way to accurately interpret the Cheney remark. The key, of course, is this last bit:
… they’ve gotten hit anyway.
ANYWAY. Cheney is stating Russia got hit, not because they did not help us in Iraq, as Layne has mistakenly stated, but regardless of what they have done. ANYWAY.
I am sure Ken will see the light and recognize his error.
Thief
Please pass the following to Mr. Layne. He might just find it instructive.
Dane-geld
(A.D. 980-1016)
by Rudyard Kipling
IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
tom scott
I listen to Ken Layne and the Corvids but I do not think I would care to get hammered with Ken if he is this intemperate while sober. But maybe I’m assuming he’s sober.
Sandi
Well as Tony Coelho former Gore campaign chairman says here: “There is nobody in charge and you have these two teams that are generally not talking to each other,” says Coehlo, who ran Al Gore’s campaign early in the 2000 presidential race. As Coelho and other detractors see it, there is a civil war within the Kerry campaign.
So with Kerry tanking more each day, it is no big supprise to me, that hacks like Ken Layne act like someone pissed in their Mountain Dew.
John Cole
Ken Layne isn’t a hack, at least not in my estimation.
The Lonewacko Blog
I note that Noam Chomsky has a blog, so perhaps he could parse this statement and Cheney’s earlier “if you make the wrong choice” statement.
As for me, I disagree with Layne’s interpretation of this statement. However, I agree that Cheney’s earlier statement was clearly an “if… then…” statement implying that a Kerry victory would lead to a terrorist attack.
The Lonewacko Blog
“However, I agree…” should be “However, I posit…” I don’t know what Layne’s interpretation if any is or was.
Slartibartfast
I disagree, kimosabe. It just as clearly (to me) isn’t. What it is, is this:
if(A)then
if(B)then
C
endif
endif
Mason
Gee, good ol Oliver is taking the same tack! O, how surprised I am.
HH
No way, Lonewacko, even Spinsanity agrees that Cheney was shamefully misquoted and we have the same thing here with Layne, who though one of the best bloggers ever, has unfortunately gone from “fact checking their ass” to deserving some fact checking himself from time to time.
The Lonewacko Blog
I am not a linguist, but, AFAIK, neither are the people at spinsanity.
If you want an accurate read of Cheney’s first sentence, you need to do two things:
1. Make an exact transcript of his statement.
2. Ask a linguist to interpret it for you.
If you did those two things, I think I would be vindicated and receive all honors obtaining thereto.
JohnO
Well since he’s a Musical Artist now, maybe he’s gone left-wing looney to boost his street cred.
Slartibartfast
No linguist is required. Linguists study language; all you really need is some passing acquaintance with symbolic logic.
The supposition that Cheney is saying that the Russians got hit because they _didn’t_ support us in Iraq is a combination of an enormous logical stretch, wishful thinking, and the disinclination on the one doing the interpretation to extend the benefit of a doubt until clarification can be obtained. David Schuster is just showing himself to be a complete idiot by saying: …”the idea that if Russia had only supported us in Iraq, had only sent troops there, they wouldn’t have gotten hit anyway.” Cheney didn’t actually say that. He says that them staying out didn’t offer them any protection. The notion that Cheney is suggesting that joining the coalition would have somehow (magically?) offered some protection against terrorist attacks at home is completely unsupported by anything Cheney said. Unless you’re hell-bent on reading a lot between the lines, and perhaps well-fortified with hallucinogens.
Same goes for the statement concerning Kerry. Anyone who thinks Cheney was seriously proposing that we’d be earning another terrorist attack if we elect Kerry is just not thinking very well.
RW
I didn’t vote for the Gore and we’ve gotten hit with more medicare and education spending and affirmative action extensions, anyway.
Which lefty is ready to say that a vote for the GOP means more medicare, ecucation dollars and affirmative action?
Eric Pobirs
I hadn’t read Layne’s site for a good while but I just examined his last several day’s worth of posts.
Any respect I previously had for him is fading fast. This reads like a LLL moonbat. What happened to this guy?
The Lonewacko Blog
That’s interesting.
Anyhoo, I’m sending an email to this linguist/blogger to see if he can clarify Cheney’s “if… then…” remark. There’s audio of that remark here, but if someone has a shorter clip that would be much appreciated.
Slartibartfast
Lonewacko, are you by any chance a Central Floridian?
Slartibartfast
Be sure and let us know what he says.
Slartibartfast
So, is this going to die as a baseless assertion?
I think I’ve lost all respect for those pounding on Cheney for these remarks. There’s absolutely nothing in what he said to justify any outrage.