Cheyney: Liar, or Moron?

[Ziggurat]

Then:

1. Don't tell me I can't back it up

1. 
   
   I didn't say you couldn't show some past pattern. I said you couldn't back up the assertion that Cheney was misleading in this case. You haven't shown that. In fact, you've stopped even trying to.
   
   

   I very specifically said I was talking about a pattern of behavior.

   
   Yes. After I called you and others on your collective inability to back up the original assertion of this thread regarding what Cheney did in this case.

 

[LawnOven]

I would rephrase what you said as:

In other words, in this case, Zigguarat seems more interested in the exact words Cheney used, and I and others are more interested in the message he is sending.​

Rephrase it however you wish.

Zigguarat is looking at the words and opining that Cheney did not lie.

Others see Cheney engaging in continued and systematic half truths, which have had the net effect of a lie; with this being yet another example.

However Ziggaurat is also opining that the second statement is illogical. which is really what I took issue with.

I suppose one could debate what constitutes a lie.

but until that happens...

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Do I detect another pattern emerging?

 

[Michael Redman]

I didn't say you couldn't show some past pattern. I said you couldn't back up the assertion that Cheney was misleading in this case. You haven't shown that. In fact, you've stopped even trying to.

The similarity of the present event with the past pattern is evidence of conformity of the present event to the past pattern. Your claim that we are not backing up our position is false.

 

[Upchurch]

I didn't say you couldn't show some past pattern. I said you couldn't back up the assertion that Cheney was misleading in this case. You haven't shown that. In fact, you've stopped even trying to.

Because maybe, just maybe, this is the time the spoon bender is using his mental powers rather than his hands?

Yes. After I called you and others on your collective inability to back up the original assertion of this thread regarding what Cheney did in this case.

Well, yes. I took it for granted that you were taking Chaney in context rather than completely isolated from anything else the man has said.

 

[Ziggurat]

The similarity of the present event with the past pattern is evidence of conformity of the present event to the past pattern.

There is NO indication of ANY attempt to mislead anyone in this instance. The only similarity I see between this event and alleged past attempts by Cheney to mislead is that the AP is trying to portray it as Cheney misleading people. But somehow Cheney MUST be lying because the AP would never ever ever slant a story, honest injun. I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because maybe, just maybe, this is the time the spoon bender is using his mental powers rather than his hands?

If you want to argue by analogy, you're still stuck on how he bent the spoon, without having demonstrated that the spoon even bent this time.

 

[Upchurch]

There is NO indication of ANY attempt to mislead anyone in this instance.

Tunnel vision much?

This instance is just another link in the chain of implications that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Yes, if you look at an individual link and ignore all the others, you would conclude that there is no chain and that this one link could not support anything.

The only similarity I see between this event and alleged past attempts by Cheney to mislead is that the AP is trying to portray it as Cheney misleading people. But somehow Cheney MUST be lying because the AP would never ever ever slant a story, honest injun. I've got a bridge to sell you.

Actually, it appears that the AP understood the implication that Chaney has been making for the last 5-6 years and is being very clear to point that out.

 

[Michael Redman]

There is NO indication of ANY attempt to mislead anyone in this instance.

You quote me making a perfectly valid argument that there is reason to believe he is trying to mislead the public, and, rather than address my argument, you simply state "there is NO indication . . ." like I haven't said anything at all? And you want me to take you seriously?

The only similarity I see between this event and alleged past attempts by Cheney to mislead is that the AP is trying to portray it as Cheney misleading people.

Where does this nonsense come from? The AP has nothing to do with Cheney's repeatedly implying that terrorists were in Iraq with Saddam's blessing. The whole justification of the war was that his WMDs would end up in terrorist hands, after all. This isn't AP slant, it's the clear stated position of the administration.

But somehow Cheney MUST be lying because the AP would never ever ever slant a story, honest injun. I've got a bridge to sell you.

You don't have a bridge. Cheney implied that you have a bridge, and you believed him. Don't get mad at me for pointing out there was never any bridge there to begin with.

 

[Upchurch]

If you want to argue by analogy, you're still stuck on how he bent the spoon, without having demonstrated that the spoon even bent this time.

Okay, let's parse it.

Chaney made his comments at the same time....

...the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Why? What was his purpose in marching this factoid back out now if not to imply it as support for his earlier statements that there were operational ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

 

[Ziggurat]

Where does this nonsense come from? The AP has nothing to do with Cheney's repeatedly implying that terrorists were in Iraq with Saddam's blessing.

The AP most certainly does have something to do with this case. The AP is the vehicle by which we are seeing his words. They are the filter, and they provide what little "context" exists for what are only two sentences by Cheney. The sentences quoted by Cheney are factually correct. In what sense can two factually correct sentences possibly be misleading? Only by context can they be misleading. And once again, the ONLY "context" we have for them is the "context" in which the AP put them. We have NO information about what else Cheney said, and so we have NO way of evaluating the actual context of those two sentences.

The whole justification of the war was that his WMDs would end up in terrorist hands, after all.

Please. Not this pathetic meme again. Go read the congressional authorization for war. You'll see a whole bunch of reasons listed. That you or anyone else obsess about one particular issue does not make it the "whole justification". It isn't, and it never was. And don't come back from reading that document until you're ready to have a serious discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? What was his purpose in marching this factoid back out now if not to imply it as support for his earlier statements that there were operational ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

Lots of possible reasons. Maybe he was asked about it. I don't know, and the point is you don't know either. Because you don't know the actual context in which he made the statement. But you believe Cheney must be lying because you're convinced he's just a liar, and the AP must be telling the entire truth because they're telling you he's a liar, and nothing has a ring of truth more than something that agrees with what you already believe.

 

[Upchurch]

Lots of possible reasons. Maybe he was asked about it. I don't know, and the point is you don't know either. Because you don't know the actual context in which he made the statement. But you believe Cheney must be lying because you're convinced he's just a liar, and the AP must be telling the entire truth because they're telling you he's a liar, and nothing has a ring of truth more than something that agrees with what you already believe.

Well, again assuming that experience counts for nothing, here is the context

RUSH: It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08, is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes, but they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill, and thus official government language, of that term. Does that give any indication of their motivation, or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure. Well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton. I worked closely with Ike when I was secretary of defense. He's chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike's a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about it. Just to give you one example, Rush. Remember Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, an Al-Qaeda affiliate. He ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Al-Qaeda, then migrated after we went into Afghanistan and shut 'em down there, he went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then of course led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the booming of the Samarra mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shi'a and Sunni. This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. There's no way you can segment out and say, "Well, we'll fight the war on terror in Pakistan or Afghanistan but we can separate Iraq. That's not really, in any way, shape, or form related." It's just dead wrong. Bin Laden has said this is the central battle in the war on terror.

My emphasis.

And lookie there! The pattern continues just as has for the last 5-6 years...

 

[Ziggurat]

And lookie there! The pattern continues just as has for the last 5-6 years...

Thanks for the link. But I don't see it showing what you seem to think it's showing. The question he was answering wasn't about whether or not it was right to go into Iraq. The question was about whether to keep using the term "war on terror". Al Qaeda is in Iraq. That is beyond doubt. Whether or not we should have tried to fight them there, whether or not it's been worth the cost, we ARE fighting them there. Whether or not it started out that way, Iraq is definitely an important front against Al Qaeda right now. Cheney is right about that, that's the essence of what he's saying, and you're grasping for straws. You can't seem to deal with the fact that there are a lot more questions regarding Iraq than whether or not the initial decision to invade was a mistake. So in that sense, yes, the pattern continues. But hey, as long as you're enjoying yourself.

 

[Michael Redman]

In what sense can two factually correct sentences possibly be misleading?

You can't be serious. That question doesn't really even deserve the explanation it has already received. (which you ignored).

Only by context can they be misleading. And once again, the ONLY "context" we have for them is the "context" in which the AP put them. We have NO information about what else Cheney said, and so we have NO way of evaluating the actual context of those two sentences.

Once again, this is wrong. Not only wrong, silly. He says the same thing over and over again, it is unreasonable to ask for proof that this time he did not mean something completely different. We don't need the full context to reasonably predict why he's repeating the same old line. You have proof to the contrary? Great. Let's see it. Otherwise, we'll reasonably assume the obvious.

Please. Not this pathetic meme again. Go read the congressional authorization for war. You'll see a whole bunch of reasons listed. That you or anyone else obsess about one particular issue does not make it the "whole justification". It isn't, and it never was. And don't come back from reading that document until you're ready to have a serious discussion.

OK, fixate on the work "whole" , and ignore what matters:

The administration said Saddam had WMDs.

Cheney said al Quieda was operating within Iraq.

Chaney justified the invasion partly to prevent al Queida from using Iraq's WMDs against us. (Remember "we don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city"?)

These are all facts. These facts are evidence (whether you admit it or not) that Cheney's repeated restating of the fact that there terrorists in Iraq, without mentioning that Saddam was powerless to do anything about it, is intended to make people believe that allowing Saddam to remain in power increased the risk that Americans would be subject to terrorist attack by WMDs.

Which was, of course, and still is, a lie.

 

[Upchurch]

Whether or not it started out that way, Iraq is definitely an important front against Al-Qaeda right now.

{snip}

You can't seem to deal with the fact that there are a lot more questions regarding Iraq than whether or not the initial decision to invade was a mistake.

Irrelevant. The question at hand is whether or not Chaney habitually misleads the public to support statements that he and the administration were grossly wrong about, namely a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam before the Iraq invasion.

How do you parse this statement?

This is Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq, and as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.

Separately, each half of that statement is true. Chaney has combined the two true, but non-sequitor, statements. Lacking a joining relationship, the reader is left to come up with one and infer that Iraq had operational ties with Al-Qaeda*.

I suppose this brings us back to the thread title. If Chaney is doing this intentionally, he is a liar. If he isn't, he's a very lucky moron.




eta: * Or rather, Al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq under Saddam Hussain and thus implying that Al-Qaeda had operational ties with Iraq.

 

[Upchurch]

Once again, this is wrong. Not only wrong, silly. He says the same thing over and over again, it is unreasonable to ask for proof that this time he did not mean something completely different. We don't need the full context to reasonably predict why he's repeating the same old line. You have proof to the contrary? Great. Let's see it. Otherwise, we'll reasonably assume the obvious.

It isn't unreasonable to ask for proof that he has done the same thing, yet again, that he has done in the past. But at what point can you say "enough already" and just assume for the sake of getting on with life that he is going to act the same way he has always acted?

 

[Ziggurat]

Irrelevant. The question at hand is whether or not Chaney habitually misleads the public to support statements that he and the administration were grossly wrong about, namely a connection between Al-Qaeda and Saddam before the Iraq invasion.

No, it isn't. The question at hand is whether or not Cheney was being a liar in this particular instance. That's what the original post was about, in case you forgot. YOU moved the goalpost on that, not me.

Separately, each half of that statement is true.

Which is just another way of saying that the statement is true.

Chaney has combined the two true, but non-sequitor, statements. Lacking a joining relationship, the reader is left to come up with one and infer that Iraq had operational ties with Al-Qaeda*.

In other words, Cheney is a liar because he didn't stop you from thinking something more than he actually said. Which amounts to him being guilty because you can't think straight. You're not impressing me, Upchurch.

 

[Ziggurat]

The administration said Saddam had WMDs.

Yes. Along with both the Clinton and the first Bush administration. And the CIA under both Clinton and Bush. This was primarily a CIA screwup.

Cheney said al Quieda was operating within Iraq.

Which is true.

Chaney justified the invasion partly to prevent al Queida from using Iraq's WMDs against us. (Remember "we don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over an American city"?)

The administration claim was much broader than that. It was to prevent Saddam from giving WMD's to terrorist organizations which might use them against us or our allies. Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organization out there, and Saddam DID have operational ties to other groups which are quite well known.

These are all facts. These facts are evidence (whether you admit it or not) that Cheney's repeated restating of the fact that there terrorists in Iraq, without mentioning that Saddam was powerless to do anything about it, is intended to make people believe that allowing Saddam to remain in power increased the risk that Americans would be subject to terrorist attack by WMDs.

Except that Cheney wasn't even talking about the justification for invasion in this case. He was talking about whether it's appropriate to frame the current conflict in Iraq as part of a broader war on terror, as Upchurch's link shows. You really are blinkered.

 

[steverino]

You seem to be associating some sort of negative identity with the word 'apologist'. Apologist doesn't mean liar...

Thanks for the clarification. I'd always thought it was like, "A white supremacist is an apologist for racism." Meaning a smaller group needing to defend a bad thing. But I looked it up and you are right.

PS- UPCHURCH- Are you spelling "Cheney" "Chaney" on porpoise?