Author Topic: Cheney you are full of **** (Read 1738 times)

rpm · « **Reply #15 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:02:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations.

Go Dick!

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Is'nt that Karl Rove's montra?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #16 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:12:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, what a threat to national security that was.

You forgot this one rpm, the one I responded to, and the one you apparently objected to.

This is the one where you used the 'change the subject' rhetorical tactic.

You now use another well worn tactic of selectively ignoring what you said.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #17 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:15:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
So you dont deny there are problems at GITMO. Thats all I need to hear. You don't disagree, you just havent seen video/pictures.

"Not disagreeing" and "argeeing" are not synonymous.

To "Not deny" is not the same as saying it is, in fact, truth.

Nash · « **Reply #18 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:15:30 AM »

GITMO is a joke. A horrible joke.

It is as if nobody played the tape out in their head.

What.... ya gonna leave these people in there for the next 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 years?

No way.

Yet, you can't just release them either. Because if somebody releases them, what does that say about their resolve in the fight against terror? If you just release them, what does that say about you locking them up in the first place?

Whaddyagonnado? Give them lawyers? Give them their day in court? Well it turns out that courts kinda have a certain respect for due process. When they get explained to them the reasons, facts, and evidence for each one of those Afghanis' detention at GITMO (nevermind the treatment), the courts will look at the prosecutors as if they have lost their collective minds.

So what to do? Release terrorists and in doing so admit the huge mistake? Keep them locked up for decades and get seen as the worst abusers of human rights evar? Give them their day in court and let the world in on the insanity that is the reality?

What a pickle. It's a ****-up. There's no respectable way out.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #19 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:25:10 AM »

Well Nash, the alternative was to shoot them on the battlefield and that probably would have received some bad press too.

Nash · « **Reply #20 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:29:18 AM »

Like we mourn for the fallen Afghanis who didn't wind up in WEIRDMO? Like we even give a crap about them? Like if the folks in TWIGHLIGHTMO had actually been shot instead, we'd even be talking about this?

BERMUDA_TRIANGLEMO is a blunder. And it is a blunder borne singly from lack of foresight. Just like almost every single thing about these wars.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #21 on:** May 31, 2005, 12:46:34 AM »

So you are saying we should have just shot them behind the ear?

Before or after we took off their handcuffs?

Gitmo is populated by in large with Taliban, not Iraqis.

Canada, France, Russia, and many other countries supported the UN Afgan operation.

Nash · « **Reply #22 on:** May 31, 2005, 01:12:38 AM »

"So you are saying we should have just shot them behind the ear?"

Do you mean to tell me that there's no standard for the handling of prisoners of war?

"Oh," you might say, "but these weren't mere prisoners of war."

"Because of this," you might say, "we have something special in mind. We'll call them 'prisoners that we don't know what to do with.'"

"We'll find a special place for them. It starts with a 'G' and rhymes with 'GITMO,'" you might say.

Ah. That was easy. Except....

They cannot stay in GITMO forever. I mean, decades from now there will still actually be a GITMO detaining prisoners of a far away war that America has long since struggled to scratch and claw out of its memory? No.

And as sure as everyone who is accused of a crime is not guilty, there can be prisoners of GITMO who are not guilty. How do you tell the difference? A court of law? Is that what it all becomes? Does everone get their day in court, including the truly guilty? They would all have to. And what would emerge, honestly?

Now Holden, does this make any sense to you?

Gitmo is populated by in large with Taliban, not Iraqis.

Well that's good. Because I'm not exactly sure that Iraqis were a part of the war on terrorism iffin ya know what I mean.

Certainly I didn't bring up Iraqis. What reason would I have to do that?

Canada, France, Russia, and many other countries supported the UN Afgan operation.

Exactly. Some could tell the difference between a war on terrorism and a war on something else entirely.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #23 on:** May 31, 2005, 01:14:01 AM »

Ahh yes gitmo....the "gulag of our time"

I bet these guys get treated like royalty down there. Knowing the military the way I do I bet abuse aligations are investigated thouroghly (SP)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #24 on:** May 31, 2005, 01:18:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Just like almost every single thing about these wars.

You said wars so it appeared you were linking Afganistan and Iraq.

So what do you propose about Gitmo?

rpm · « **Reply #25 on:** May 31, 2005, 01:29:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You forgot this one rpm, the one I responded to, and the one you apparently objected to.

This is the one where you used the 'change the subject' rhetorical tactic.

You now use another well worn tactic of selectively ignoring what you said.

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Was it Karl Rove who used those tactics in response to a stained dress? Can't remember...

If we were to list politicians that used this tactic, this will be a long thread.

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, what a threat to national security that was.

I was replying directly to you on the subject of your post. You bring up a subject and I respond to it. I'll ask you again, WTH are you smoking?

Nash · « **Reply #26 on:** May 31, 2005, 01:37:21 AM »

Because I implied that these wars are and were repleat with screw-ups does not mean that I am implying that that these wars maintain anything near a relationship to eachother in terms of justification. Just simply that they were repleat with screw-ups. In fact, the only relationship these wars have to eachother can be found in the temperature of those regions and the the folks at the helm.

What do I propose for GITMO?

Take one in the face, and shut it down. WALK the talk. Physically demonstrate to your enemies that when you say "Democracy" and "Freedom" and "Justice," that despite the errors that any country is apt to make, you are able to recognize them, and that you endevour to right them. Even if it means a backlash. Whatever the fall out. Nobody's perfect. That's fine.

In fact, there is probably no better demonstration of America than the ability to recognize what is fundamentally flawed and posessing the flexibility and strength to right them. Despite any set-back and for no other reason but for that it is just. simply. the. right. thing. to. do.

It speaks volumes.

Because to them? The people over there who's help you absolutely need? With GITMO? They look at it and say "same 'ol."

So you asked and that's what I would recommend. We've already gone over the alternatives. None of which are very pretty. And they are only going to get uglier over time. So, strictly on a PR basis even, you could turn a futile situation into unmistakable testament to what America stands for, virtually overnight and GITMO becomes a fading memory.

But as if. And GITMO will instead and for years continue to fly in the face of whatever it is you're trying to accomplish over there. And for whatever it nets you, it harms you that much more.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #27 on:** May 31, 2005, 02:39:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
I was replying directly to you on the subject of your post. You bring up a subject and I respond to it. I'll ask you again, WTH are you smoking?

The subject of my post in response to your Karl Rove post was that the rhetorical tactic of "Admit nothing, Deny everything, Make counter accusations." was common on both sides of the aisle.

As Karl Rove is a lighting rod for the rhetoric of those opposing the GWB White House, your Karl Rove post, it seemed to me, was to show that the tactic is was within the Bush white house, and seemed to leave out the rest of politicians.

Your reponse to my post was national security implications, not the rhetorical style.

That is why I correctly identified your tactic (at least used it this thread) of changing the subject. It is a tactic you continue to use with your smoking question.

Raider179 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 31, 2005, 03:35:48 AM »

The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html

Wow I will take that bet. lol

Wolf14 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 31, 2005, 03:44:39 AM »

Take anything a news agency has to say, unless you were there to witness the news in action first hand, divide it by twelve and thats how much of it is true.

Never trust a reporter to do what is right. Connie Chung proved that.