[Mithras]

heh.

[lil'babykitten]

More like: Biggest. Joke. of a Vice-President. evar.

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
More like: Biggest. Joke. of a Vice-President. evar.

Not in my opinion. It all depends on your vantage point. If you're inclined to view him cynically, then you see this as him exploiting people's fears to keep the reigns of power.

If you view him genuinely, then you'd have a very hard time criticizing the man for attempting to prevent something even worse than 9/11.

One thing is for sure, given the outcry of the public regarding "why wasn't 9/11 prevented" it would be foolhardy for a politician to ignore the issue. And if this initiative does happen to prevent another major terroristic attack, I assume all of the people who have been criticizing Mr. Cheney will thank him for protecting them from themselves.

[Jacket]

Originally posted by moki:
Not in my opinion. It all depends on your vantage point. If you're inclined to view him cynically, then you see this as him exploiting people's fears to keep the reigns of power.

If you view him genuinely, then you'd have a very hard time criticizing the man for attempting to prevent something even worse than 9/11.

One thing is for sure, given the outcry of the public regarding "why wasn't 9/11 prevented" it would be foolhardy for a politician to ignore the issue. And if this initiative does happen to prevent another major terroristic attack, I assume all of the people who have been criticizing Mr. Cheney will thank him for protecting them from themselves.

it really depends on what qualities you want in your leaders... do you want leaders who want to prevent americans from being killed, or do you want leaders who wait around only to react to americans having been killed.

if you want the latter, vote Democrat.

[maxelson]

That response is bloody patronizing. As if one could not view him from a "genuine" vantage point and NOT criticize him (and while we are at it, what exactly IS a "genuine standpoint"? One with which you agree or that shows Cheney in a positive light?).

Don't be so insulting.

And Mr. Jacket proves the point. I knew he could serve some use.

Rabid frigging Sheep.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
Not in my opinion. It all depends on your vantage point. If you're inclined to view him cynically, then you see this as him exploiting people's fears to keep the reigns of power.

If you view him genuinely, then you'd have a very hard time criticizing the man for attempting to prevent something even worse than 9/11.

One thing is for sure, given the outcry of the public regarding "why wasn't 9/11 prevented" it would be foolhardy for a politician to ignore the issue. And if this initiative does happen to prevent another major terroristic attack, I assume all of the people who have been criticizing Mr. Cheney will thank him for protecting them from themselves.

I guess your vantage point overrides mine? My opinion of him comes from what I have seen him do.
His actions aren't about helping America's security-though that makes a nice finish to his speeches. He's only interested in re-shaping the Middle-East.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3181604.stm

He said Iraq was a better place now and "an example of freedom for all the Middle-East".

If you think his (and the rest of the admin's) actions have helped America's security, you really are mistaken.
But I guess the 7,000 dead Iraqi's redeems the 3,000 dead Americans, right?

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I guess your vantage point overrides mine?

When did I ever state that? Though as someone who doesn't live in this country, I suppose it could be said that your opinion of him isn't really relevant. You can't vote against him.

]His actions aren't about helping America's security-though that makes a nice finish to his speeches. He's only interested in re-shaping the Middle-East.

In y our opinion it isn't helping security here. I will point out that there have been zero terroristic attacks in the US since these policies have been put in place. There is no way to absolutely *prove* that it is helping one way or another, but massive numbers of al qaeda that have been killed or rounded up certainly help the situation. I applaud both.

But I guess the 7,000 dead Iraqi's redeems the 3,000 dead Americans, right?

sigh. Whatever. The action in Iraq is not about revenge, this is a tired old argument.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by moki:
One thing is for sure, given the outcry of the public regarding "why wasn't 9/11 prevented" it would be foolhardy for a politician to ignore the issue. And if this initiative does happen to prevent another major terroristic attack, I assume all of the people who have been criticizing Mr. Cheney will thank him for protecting them from themselves.

Nobody wants the safety of the nation and its citizens to be ignored, but we don't need it shoved in our faces all the time either. We place a significant amount of faith in our leaders to place our safety and well-being at the forefront of their agendas, but these types of scare tactics are cheap.

What agitates me is that our safety did not appear to be the primary responsibility of the Bush administration (and possibly Clinton's too) until it was too late. Now we are subjected to all of this FUD rhetoric so often that it really appears to me that Bush and Co. are overcompensating. It's particularly annoying when there are so many other pressing issues to discuss, but the current administration spends huge amounts of time and money going on an Iraq War PR campaign, trying to justify their screw-ups and simultaneously trying to scare us back into some type of post-9/11 shell.

[moki]

Originally posted by maxelson:
That response is bloody patronizing. As if one could not view him from a "genuine" vantage point and NOT criticize him (and while we are at it, what exactly IS a "genuine standpoint"? One with which you agree or that shows Cheney in a positive light?).

Don't be so insulting.

I wasn't insulting anyone, I was merely pointing out that your opinion on the matter depends on where you're coming from.

This is not patronizing, nor is it condescending, it's just the way things are. I never stated that any opinion was better, or "right", just that your opinion depends on your vantage point.

[moki]

Originally posted by The Mick:
What agitates me is that our safety did not appear to be the primary responsibility of the Bush administration (and possibly Clinton's too) until it was too late.

Right, and that's why the administration is making it such a focus now. People like you have stated that they are pissed off that security was not a primary focus of either of the previous administrations.

So now they are focusing on it. And people are pissed off because they cynically believe that the focus on security is just about pushing forward an agenda.

They may be right, they may be wrong -- but the truth is that you can't have it both ways.

Either we focus on security, and upset people who feel it is being done for cynical reasons, or we don't focus on security, and people will scream to high heaven the next time there is a successful terroristic attack ("Why didn't they prevent it??")

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Jacket:
it really depends on what qualities you want in your leaders... do you want leaders who want to prevent americans from being killed, or do you want leaders who wait around only to react to americans having been killed.

if you want the latter, vote Democrat.

"If you want people to be killed, vote Republican. However, if you want people to be killed, vote Democrat."

[The Mick]

Originally posted by moki:
Right, and that's why the administration is making it such a focus now. People like you have stated that they are pissed off that security was not a primary focus of either of the previous administrations.

So now they are focusing on it. And people are pissed off because they cynically believe that the focus on security is just about pushing forward an agenda.

They may be right, they may be wrong -- but the truth is that you can't have it both ways.

Either we focus on security, and upset people who feel it is being done for cynical reasons, or we don't focus on security, and people will scream to high heaven the next time there is a successful terroristic attack ("Why didn't they prevent it??")

I don't want anything both ways, I want a happy middle ground somewhere. From my admittedly cynical viewpoint, these speaches are like a parent constantly telling their child that the boogie man won't get you, but don't forget about the boogie man under the bed! Daddy will protect you from the boogie man, but remember, he hides in the closet! There's a boogie man in the basement, but don't worry, Daddy will keep you safe. It's like they are trying to lull us into complacency.

[icruise]

Originally posted by Jacket:
it really depends on what qualities you want in your leaders... do you want leaders who want to prevent americans from being killed, or do you want leaders who wait around only to react to americans having been killed.

if you want the latter, vote Democrat.

Al Franken (yes I know) in his new book paints a pretty convincing picture of the Republicans doing nothing whatsoever to prevent 9-11, despite the recommendations of people from the Clinton administration regarding the establishment of anti-terrorist measures.

[Mithras]

This goes back to the "Democrats aren't concerned about the security of Americans" comment before the '02 elections:

conflation of:
* an interest in protecting the security of Americans
with:
* a particular manner of protecting that security, and interpretation of what actions will or will not make us more secure.

But I have to disagree: reasonable, intelligent people, people with the best interests of Americans (or the world) at heart, actually can have different ideas about what will best serve those interests.

Pertinent examples:
* Did the war in Vietnam advance the security of the American people?
* Would invading Cuba during the Missle Crisis have advanced the security of the American people?
* Did fighting World War II advance the security of the American people?
* Did Clinton's cruise-missle strikes in Afghanistan in 1998 advance the security of the American people?
* Did American action in Afghanistan in 2001 advance the security of the American people?
* at issue in Cheney's speech: Did the invasion of Iraq in 2003 advance the security of the American people?

* Does the Peace Corps advance the security of the American people?
* Does the prevention and treatment of AIDS and malaria in Africa advance the security of the American people?

The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.
And thinking that one solution may be better than another is completely (or ought to be)

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Al Franken (yes I know) in his new book paints a pretty convincing picture of the Republicans doing nothing whatsoever to prevent 9-11, despite the recommendations of people from the Clinton administration regarding the establishment of anti-terrorist measures.

There is also the fact that, judging from the Kay report and other information, Saddam's weapons programs lapsed in 1998, perhaps as a result of the bombing raids conducted by Clinton. I'm not prepared to say it, but it raises the possibility that Clinton pursued a sound strategy after all.

[MacGorilla]

Dick Cheney isn't a vice president, he's more like a Prime Minister.

A panicy prime minister who warns anyday WE"RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!

[osiris]

I'm so scared. Oh gawd and geezus and sweet baby geezus, oh.

[Mithras]

Blatantly unscientific, etc. etc.:

[spauldingg]

an aside: seperated at birth, perhaps?

[finboy]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

His actions aren't about helping America's security-though that makes a nice finish to his speeches. He's only interested in re-shaping the Middle-East.

Think about those two sentences carefully and you'll find that the second is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the first.

Cheney is doing his job, and he's one of the first VPs in a long time to be able to claim that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
I wasn't insulting anyone, I was merely pointing out that your opinion on the matter depends on where you're coming from.

This is not patronizing, nor is it condescending, it's just the way things are. I never stated that any opinion was better, or "right", just that your opinion depends on your vantage point.

when you differentiate your viewpoint as "genuine" you do exactly that.
Either you take us for fools, are you are completely unaware of the underlying meaning of your posts.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
There is also the fact that, judging from the Kay report and other information, Saddam's weapons programs lapsed in 1998, perhaps as a result of the bombing raids conducted by Clinton. I'm not prepared to say it, but it raises the possibility that Clinton pursued a sound strategy after all.

blasphemy! (joke)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by The Mick:
I don't want anything both ways, I want a happy middle ground somewhere. From my admittedly cynical viewpoint, these speaches are like a parent constantly telling their child that the boogie man won't get you, but don't forget about the boogie man under the bed! Daddy will protect you from the boogie man, but remember, he hides in the closet! There's a boogie man in the basement, but don't worry, Daddy will keep you safe. It's like they are trying to lull us into complacency.

not complacency but rather dependency.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
not complacency but rather dependency.

Perhaps, but what I was getting at is the current administration seems to think that if they keep telling up it's all okay, eventually we'll believe it and just automatically re-elect them regardless of the truth. At least that's my theory.

[chris v]

Some member of the vast-left-wing-media-conspiracy must work in the photo bank at CNN.com. They've been picking some real winners, lately.

Cheney looks like he's about to bite the head off an Iraqi baby in that shot.

On topic: The fear-mongering is growing out of all proportions, by my estimation. I'm tired of being told that if we don't all allow the Bush admin. to do whatever the hell they please, that hundreds of thousands of us are going to die horribly, and probably very soon.

CV

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
when you differentiate your viewpoint as "genuine" you do exactly that.
Either you take us for fools, are you are completely unaware of the underlying meaning of your posts.

moki, I was shocked reading that from you. I expect that kind of rank condescension from others on this forum, but not you.

[thunderous_funker]

Yes

He

is

the

best

vice

president

we've

ever

had.

Did you ever think you'd miss Quayle?

[Logic]

Originally posted by moki:
In y our opinion it isn't helping security here. I will point out that there have been zero terroristic attacks in the US since these policies have been put in place. There is no way to absolutely *prove* that it is helping one way or another, but massive numbers of al qaeda that have been killed or rounded up certainly help the situation. I applaud both.

1. How many "terroristic" attacks were there before?

2. Do you really applaud killing people? Doesn't that make you just as "evil" as the Al-Qaida members you hate and their supporters?

[djjava]

Originally posted by Logic:
1. How many "terroristic" attacks were there before?

2. Do you really applaud killing people? Doesn't that make you just as "evil" as the Al-Qaida members you hate and their supporters?

Killing the Evil-Doers is not evil..

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by djjava:
Killing the Evil-Doers is not evil..

oh...and you are able to separate the evil-doers from the innocent bystanders once they're dead, right? Lessee...that dead muslim looks like a terrorist. We must hit the jackpot! Hey, that nine year old muslim boy looks like he mighta growed up to be a terrorist...huzzah for the righteous kill!.
Line up them there terrorists! lemme bomb 'em! nothing better than getting off of the blood of others to show how they should not be gettin off on the blood of others.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by chris v:


On topic: The fear-mongering is growing out of all proportions, by my estimation. I'm tired of being told that if we don't all allow the Bush admin. to do whatever the hell they please, that hundreds of thousands of us are going to die horribly, and probably very soon.

CV

Really. Isn't some perspective in order at some point. As horrible as 9/11 was, if the FBI, CIA, and INS were actually speaking to each other it probably wouldn't have even happened. They would've picked up and held the hijackers when they came across them which, I think I heard, happened several times over the preceding two years.

We've had two wars, tens-of-thousands of deaths, spent nearly $200 BILLION (destroying & restoring), alienated our allies, weakened the UN, created YET ANOTHER Government bureaucracy, gone half a TRILLION dollars in debt all because of 19 guys with box cutters (BOX CUTTERS for chrissakes) who could steer and point a plane but couldn't land one. It's insane.

When are we going to wake up?

(Sorry, OT rant.)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Really. Isn't some perspective in order at some point. As horrible as 9/11 was, if the FBI, CIA, and INS were actually speaking to each other it probably wouldn't have even happened. They would've picked up and held the hijackers when they came across them which, I think I heard, happened several times over the preceding two years.

We've had two wars, tens-of-thousands of deaths, spent nearly $200 BILLION (destroying & restoring), alienated our allies, weakened the UN, created YET ANOTHER Government bureaucracy, gone half a TRILLION dollars in debt all because of 19 guys with box cutters (BOX CUTTERS for chrissakes) who could steer and point a plane but couldn't land one. It's insane.

When are we going to wake up?

(Sorry, OT rant.)

That's just beautiful, man. Beautiful.

:applause:

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That's just beautiful, man. Beautiful.

:applause:

Thank you. Thank you. :takes bow:

:waits for inevitable slamming from Bush apologists: