Uhm..yah...

[kufyit]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/ ... index.html

Pathetic. The Repulicans have finally whored 9/11. How low.

Two bucks for anyone that can produce a plausible argument supporting this insensitive hubris.

I would love to kick the sh1t out of these people.

[Tyranny]

and somehow you're blind to why Kerry has been touting his vietnam experience all this time? He uses it as leverage to reassure the American people that if another 9/11 were to happen he could take care of it just as easily as Bush.

Exploitation is the name of the game. It really makes no difference if it is spouted forth from a Dem or a Rep. Neither side is truely innocent.

[Ferno]

I'm sorry but I'm not suprised by this in the least.

you guys are screwed. oh man...

[kufyit]

and somehow you're blind to why Kerry has been touting his vietnam experience all this time? He uses it as leverage to reassure the American people that if another 9/11 were to happen he could take care of it just as easily as Bush.

Tyranny, you know as well as I do that those are two different things man. To say to the American people that if another terrorist attack were to occur, you could defend the country is one thing. To say that voting for a particular person will in all likelyhood actually lead to another terrorist attack is an ENTIRELY different matter all together. Think, man. Can you explain the causal relationship between electing a president and terrorist events? No, because there is none.

Or, have you an explanation? Let's hear it.

[Lothar]

You've fallen victim to some clever editing. You owe me 2 bucks.

Here's how it appears in the news article:

"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," Cheney said.

"And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, 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."

It kinda sounds like he's saying "there's a danger we'll get hit again" -- saying that electing Kerry would lead to an attack. But that's only because someone cleverly inserted "Cheney said" to distract you from the whole sentence and instead force you into reading only half of it. Notice the comma in the middle -- Cheney doesn't end his sentence where it appears he ended it. The half-sentence sure sounds like what you claim, but look at the whole sentence:

"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 then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, 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."

Summary: The danger is that we'll be hit AND we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset.

He's not saying we're more likely to get hit if Kerry is elected -- he's saying that if and when we get hit we're more likely to respond to it in the pre-911 "law enforcement" mindset if Kerry is elected.

It's clever of the editors to break the sentence right in the middle like that. It completely changes the meaning of the quote.

Let me say that once again, in bold, in case anyone is skimming: Cheney was not saying what it appears he was saying. The writer/editor changed the meaning of his quote by putting the words "Cheney said" in the middle of his sentence. If you strip out the "Cheney said" and read the whole sentence, it reads very differently.

[kufyit]

Interesting Lothar, but unconvincing.

What Cheney said was, editing or not:

1. If we make the wrong choice..." That wrong choice would be electing anyone except for George Bush;

2. then "the danger is that we'll get hit again..."

I certianly see where you are coming from, Lothar, and I agree with you. However, I feel that this is nothing more than clever diction on the part of the speechwriters. That first if->then statement is a complete sentence. If we elect Kerry, then the danger is we'll get hit again. Period.

I do agree that it sounds more neutral the way you articulated it, however your example creates a run-on sentence. I highly doubt that this was the way in which it was said.

But, ultimately, you're right. Yet, it certianly straddles the line.

I feel like I owe you one buck instead of two.

[Avder]

I dont care what way you try to slice it. He's insinuating that if Kerry is elected, were gonna get hit with more terrorist attacks.

Why does this reek of the 1980 hostage situation?

[Birdseye]

The only card the bush administration can play is fear (worked to take us to war in Iraq) because their record on the economy and social issues is awful. You'll see more of this.

[Lothar]

What Cheney said was, editing or not:

1. If we make the wrong choice..." That wrong choice would be electing anyone except for George Bush;

2. then "the danger is that we'll get hit again..."

3. AND we respond in the pre-9/11 mindset of law enforcement.

4. THAT (falling back into the pre-9/11 mindset) would be a terrible mistake.

When you break his quote in the middle and stick a period there, yeah, it makes sense -- but it's not what he said. There's not a break there.

There's another reason why this reading makes sense: one of the GOP talking points is that Kerry still treats terrorism as a law-enforcement matter. It makes sense that Cheney would be trying to hammer home "it would be a mistake to elect Kerry, because he thinks terrorism is a law-enforcement matter." It doesn't make sense for Cheney to say "it would be a mistake to elect Kerry, because it would increase terrorism" -- I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know he'd get the sort of response you posted from most swing voters.

This reading certainly isn't a run-on sentence. It's long, but it's a single complete idea and it's joined properly.

I feel that this is nothing more than clever diction on the part of the speechwriters. That first if->then statement is a complete sentence.

That may be true -- it might be both clever diction on the part of the speechwriters, and clever editing on the part of the newswriters. But it seems pretty clear to me that the insertion of "Cheney said" is very misleading -- it forces you into the reading you had, instead of what I think is far more natural. I'd be interested to see how it would be read by people who didn't see the CNN article, and just read the full quote.

If you read the rest of your CNN article -- which I did this morning -- it seems Cheney's spokespeople are saying the same thing:

"Whoever is elected in November faces the prospect of another terrorist attack. The question is whether or not we have the right policies in place to best protect our country. That's what the vice president said."
...
"If you take the whole quote, the vice president stands by his statement. But if you just take a chunk, that's not what he meant."

That seems exactly like what I'm saying -- it looks like the article split the quote in half. If you take just a chunk, you get the wrong meaning.

I highly doubt that this was the way in which it was said.

It would be nice if we had footage, wouldn't it? Then we could be sure. I can't find any, but typing whitehouse.gov and clicking on "Vice President" led me to the transcript of the speech. And it looks like we can determine the meaning simply from the context. To view the quote in proper context, you have to start with the line "But good defense is not enough" and read the next 16 paragraphs. That's a lot of reading, so I'm going to summarize. Even the summary will be long, so I'll post a hyper-short summary at the end.

We have to go on the offense -- not just try to prevent terror attacks, because you can never be 100% successful on defense, but also go after terrorists where they train and going after nations that harbor them. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq and shut down regimes that sponsor terror. "The ultimate solution isn't just to kill terrorists [but instead] to make certain that we change the circumstances [in Iraq and Afghanistan] so they never again become breeding grounds for the terrorists." This isn't just a US problem, but a worldwide problem.

The upcoming decision is important, because there's a big difference in the way Kerry would respond to attacks and the way we currently do. We thank Kerry for his Vietnam service, but we question the way he acted in the Senate. We have to look at Kerry's record. He voted against the same systems as Cheney did -- but he voted against them in '84 during the Cold War, while Cheney cancelled them in '89 to '93 after the cold war was over. Kerry voted against Desert Storm. Kerry voted for Gulf War II but against funding the troops.

"I don't believe he has demonstrated the kind of commitment and capability and philosophy and world view... to successfully defend the United States against the kind of threat we're faced with today" (NOTE: he's not saying Kerry doesn't want to defend the US -- just that he wouldn't be successful at it.) Kerry would use military force in response to attacks, but we need to make a decision to go after the attackers before they launch, to get rid of terrorist breeding grounds -- we've already been attacked, and now we need to stay on offense. That means on Nov 2 we have to make the right decision for president, because the danger is... the thing this whole thread is about. But we have to understand we're at war.

So the entire context here is in talking about responding differently to terrorism. The entire context is about viewing it as a war, going on the offensive against terrorists and taking out terrorist camps and terrorist-sponsoring regimes, using the military to take out terrorists. Viewed within this context, kufyit's reading doesn't really fit, but mine does. Within this context, it's clear that the danger Cheney is pointing to is not that Kerry will invite more attacks, but that he'll respond to attacks ineffectively. Cheney is saying the problem is that Kerry will stay on defense, but we need to go on offense.

[Will Robinson]

It really depends on which Kerry is elected.
The one who said just a year ago that we should spend more money on the war in Iraq to "do whatever it takes to win"...
Or, the Kerry who wants to get us out in 6 months...
Or the Kerry who just said he'll have us out in four years....

Of course our enemies are watching and know they have 2 more months to see how many more positions Kerry can take what with his convictions being all 'seared into him' and all

I think the jury is still out and we should wait until after the election to see which John Kerry is president. Yea that's the ticket.

[Lothar]

kufyit, is that worth the full $2?