Blogcritics: Comments on Has Cheney gone off his meds?

Comment by Joe

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:39:17 EST

Exactly, a subtle message to the new guy, who, I'd point out, is CIA.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:36:40 EST

I dunno, Joe. The transcript page had the following on it, so it doesn't look like the new guy is in the administration's pocket: Editor's Note, Jan. 22, 2004: Recent news reports say that David Kay will soon be replaced by former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer. Earlier this month, Duelfer told NBC News that he doubted biological and chemical weapons would be found in Iraq.

Comment by Joe

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:33:31 EST

JR- Nothing personal, this isn't an attack on you, but that's about the stupidest fucking line of reasoning I've heard in a long time. Just my opinion, mind you.

Comment by Joe

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:28:19 EST

Hal- perhaps what you're looking for is that Kays replacement was named today.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:23:13 EST

Oh, wait, did you mean the creepy old dude who has his hand up Shrub's ass? I don't know if he is hiding out in San Fernando. I do know he is fisting somebody. Perhaps the 'murrican public.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:15:45 EST

Joe, Anthrax Dude (tm) is spooning with Dick Chaney in an undisclosed location in the San Fernando Valley. Cumming soon: Weapons of Ass Distraction in Jizz-o-vision. To paraphrase Mr. Wiggles, it's not important that we are black or white because we're all pink inside.

Comment by JR

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:15:05 EST

In my mind, that's always been a compelling reason for why the Bush lied thing didn't hold much water. If he was going to take the risk to lie about them, he would likely take the risk to ensure they were there. That'd be too much work. It's easier to just say something and then blow off any questions that come up later. If Bush had the energy to plant evidence, he'd have the energy to check his facts and make stronger cases for his policies.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:15:03 EST

I wasn't thinking of the Fed-Ex package, but Cheney speaking out on a topic that wasn't really in the press at this time made my ears perk up. Cheney is a sly codger and I just don't see this happening without an agenda, but couldn't figure out what it might be. I suppose it could be just because last September's interview with David Kay ran again last night and Cheney wanted a countervailing comment on the record contemporaneously when historians dig back at some future time. Sorry, but that's the best I could come up with.

Comment by Joe

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:07:20 EST

Jim- I concede to your superior analogizing skillz, but sometimes, I must admit, I don't know what the hell you're saying. Anthrax Dude? They never found him so he must not exist.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:59:01 EST

Hey, Joe, you don't tell the sock-puppet you've got athletes foot. And how is that search for the Anthrax-made-in-murrica-mailer going anyways?

Comment by Joe

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:54:18 EST

You mean like a special Fed-Ex arrival in Baghdad of nuclear device with the "Made in the USA" stamp filed off? In my mind, that's always been a compelling reason for why the Bush lied thing didn't hold much water. If he was going to take the risk to lie about them, he would likely take the risk to ensure they were there. Maybe he's reiterating their claims as a run up to Syria. There's something going on between CIA and the admin (which has been going on for a while), perhaps it's approaching a tipping point.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:49:55 EST

They just got his firmware upgrade confused with the Mars rover, which is why it spent the last day just sending beeps which didn't mean anything. However things are now fixed and the Veepbot is now broadcasting disinfo, like normal.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 17:43:11 EST

Okay, with the terminology now terminally munged, what's with Cheney? Any thoughts on why he's saying what he's saying at this particular time? Is it a lead-in for anything?

Comment by jadester

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:37:53 EST

that may be so, but is beside the point Hal is trying to make (and the arguments against it) Of course, part of the problem is how you define "mass destruction" at what point of effectiveness or brutality or long-term effectiveness does a weapon become a weapon of mass destruction? it's a wonderfully vague term and that's why the politicians love using it so much. More often than specifically referring to the various types, too.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:59:05 EST

If you are going to talk Kurds, why is Turkey asking for support from the USA to exterminate these "terrorists"? And if anybody should know about 20th century genocide and how it is to be successfully conducted, it is the Turks.

Comment by Joe

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:50:51 EST

As a point of history, there is some speculation that Lord Amherst used smallpox infected blankets as a bio-weapon against American Indians in the late 1700's. As per the term WMDs, up until 2000, at least to my knowledge, the working terminology used with the Army was NBC (for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical). So the grouping isn't really so strange. I believe that WMD is more the terminology used when discussing it the employment at a strategic level and has the connotation of a weaponized means of delivery such as a ballistic missile.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:34:02 EST

I thought he had used chemicals when he killed the tens of thousands of Kurds in the 1980s, and was talking about the biological weapons that were supposedly in the vans, but clearly should have been clearer.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:26:53 EST

These are hard to use for "mass destruction" and the last time they were used successfully was probably during the Middle Ages, i agree with your cheny premise for the most part but this statement is off...as a whole lot of kurds would disagree with you.