Cheney bashes top Democrats

Cheney bashes top Democrats

Cheney offered an upbeat assessment of the Iraq war, predicting that when he and Bush leave office in January 2009 a self-governing democracy would be firmly established in Iraq.
Turning to progress in Iraq, he said: “We’ve got a lot of work to do. We’re sort of halfway through the surge, in a sense. We’ll be going back to pre-surge levels over the course of the next year.”
But Cheney said that by the middle of January 2009, it will be clear that “we have in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future.”

All of that by 2009?

“Yes, sir,” he replied.

Optimistic doesn't begin to describe this perspective - more like delusional. Not that it may not happen, but that timeframe is rediculous.

O.K.

Now I understand a little more of the machinations behind the statement.

So this is my view of recent events. I just couldn't understand why one department of the U.S. government would contradict the president in relation to Iran's nuclear capacity. I'm sure that any statements of such magnitude couldn't get a release without White House approval.

The violence in Iraq has subsided over the last few months with a reduction in the loss of both military and civilian lives. This could not have been achieved without a cutback by Iran in their supply of weaponry and subversency. Could there have been a behind the doors agreement here? That the U.S. would accept Iran was not producing nuclear material for anything other than peaceful purposes?

Now comes the Cheney statement. Too upbeat to be convincing unless he is aware of future U.S. Iranian plans that the rest of us are not privy to.

Beevee;413849 wrote:

So this is my view of recent events. I just couldn't understand why one department of the U.S. government would contradict the president in relation to Iran's nuclear capacity. I'm sure that any statements of such magnitude couldn't get a release without White House approval.

That was more true before Iraq. The intelligence community doesn't want to get the blame for Bush's next war, so they're being a bit more vocal in their objections this time around.

Even so, Bush did manage to delay the release of this report for a year.

classicman;413794 wrote:

requoted: "Cheney offered an upbeat assessment of the Iraq war, predicting that when he and Bush leave office in January 2009 a self-governing democracy would be firmly established in Iraq."

Their purpose was long ago identified. "Mission Accomplished" must not be lost under this president's watch. They have succeeded in doing just that and in creating a war that will suck in America probably for another 10 years. That number also from the administration who, like Nixon, was more interested in his legacy than in America.

I didn't say that the article did! get your facts right.
I said "Optimistic doesn't begin to describe this perspective - more like delusional. Not that it may not happen, but that timeframe is rediculous."

classicman;414022 wrote:

I didn't say that the article did! get your facts right.

Should you reread the post ... did you see the word "requoted"? Quoted is the quote you quoted. Requoted. To make it more obvious, I also put the requote inside double quotes.

I don't believe Cheney is being delusional. I believe he is declaring victory for having not lost "Mission Accomplished" on the President Cheney watch. Delusional would be those who believe Cheney's spin.

He's not a dumb man. Neither were the Nazis, Pol Pot, Milosevic, or Stalin. Each did good - according to their agendas. Delusional would be those who blindly supported these leaders; who did not ask themselves some damning questions.

And tw is too adrift to flatly declare that what they did was not merely evil, but gross evil.

That illustrates why I don't think the way tw does. Take a lesson: good is not relative to who's perceiving it.

tw;414076 wrote:

Should you reread the post ... did you see the word "requoted"? Quoted is the quote you quoted. Requoted. To make it more obvious, I also put the requote inside double quotes.

It looks as though the quote was something I said. In order to avoid any possible misinterpretation.
State the facts up front, just quote the article, not me.

classicman;414501 wrote:

It looks as though the quote was something I said. In order to avoid any possible misinterpretation.
State the facts up front, just quote the article, not me.

Maybe you should just get the Cliff Notes for my post - to make it easier to read.

Any tw post is a Cliff's Notes for all tw posts. Read one and you're read them all.

tw;414838 wrote:

Maybe you should just get the Cliff Notes for my post - to make it easier to read.

Maybe you should just qoute it right the first time and avoid any confusion.

classicman;414867 wrote:

Maybe you should just qoute it right the first time and avoid any confusion.

It was posted right. Was the world 'requote' too complex. Were the double quotes too difficult to see.

The Cliff Note for that post:
[SIZE="6"] .[/SIZE]

Is that easier?

nope - one way is very vague and can be misleading, the other makes the writers intent and reference quite clear.

classicman;414910 wrote:

nope - one way is very vague and can be misleading, the other makes the writers intent and reference quite clear.

What part of "requoted" don't you understand. Are you really Urbane Guerrilla? The 'requote' and the expression embedded in double quotes ALSO came with a hyperlink so that others could see exactly what was posted. How many times over could it be that simple - and still classicman is confused?

He is confused and I am amused.
He's worries that a requoten
Might be mistoken.
At what point do we ... not care.

Right about now - buh bye