What an astonishing piece of footage this is! Dick Cheney appears on CNN; Wolf Blitzer asks him a question about his lesbian daughter having a baby. Only Wolf asks it in a kind of backhanded, gutless way, and Cheney instantly bitchslaps him into submission.
It's really quite remarkable to watch, particularly Cheney's complete willingness to tolerate "dead air"—the worst crime on TV.
And after Cheney rebukes him, Blitzer completely collapses into a sniveling, sycophantic heap. "We like your daughters very much...I wan to congratulate you on having another grandchild."
Sometimes you can understand why Cheney is so contemptuous of the press....
¶ 10:18 AM
I disagree with your assessment of the "dead air"--I think Cheney very effectively allowed Wolf time to dig his own grave...and Cheney looked more measured, and reasonable for it.
It's easy to disagree with Cheney on many issues, but the man still has more integrity than any two reporters I've ever encountered (FYI, I've not encountered Richard). And no, setting the record straight on Plame's conflict of interest didn't bother me one iota.
I assume 11:54 means "integrity" not to exclude the definitions at OED 3b: "soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity"
Ha! Pretending to get mad at the mention of his lesbian daughter won't get this camel through the needle's eye.
No, not excluding. A "steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code" (American Heritage, can't access OED at the moment) is indeed my use here. Of course, no one would ever agree on a uniform interpretation of those qualities, but I personally see a man with consistent principles and a "steadfast adherence" to them. Remember that if you believe something to be true that is later proved false, you are not guilty of lying, just being wrong.
Fine, he has stuck to his principles. I'll grant you that. But he has been wrong not only on Iraq, but on virtually every issue of note during his career over the last 30-something years. When a person sticks to dogma when evidence and common sense dictates otherwise, it is folly, not integrity.
But 1:11, everyone knew Cheney didn't believe this stuff (WMD phantoms, etc.) to be true, rather wanted to convince us it was true by any and all dishonest means available. That fails the integrity test whatever your dictionary.
No, I think he did believe it. Who was it that just published a book recently where they had Cheney and his staff obsessively pouring over WMD leads and even sending coordinates to those on the ground. This is why I understand anyone who disagrees with Cheney and Bush, but I don't understand the ones who believe the administration is actually one long conspiracy theory, hell-bent on screwing up the planet. If they did rig Florida in 2000 or knew about 9/11, then why the hell didn't they plant WMDs (how hard could it have been?) or rig 2006? Because conspiracy theories tell you more about the believers than they do about the real world. You've let your personal distaste for the administration get the best of you when you start buying into that crap. They're wrong about Iraq, but just as much blame--if not more--goes on the Iraqis themselves, who can't seem to get over thousand-year-old differences when most cultures can do so in mere decades. They have squandered a golden opportunity by seeking only personal vengence. The scene in Lawrence of Arabia comes to mind, where Lawrence admonishes the prince after shooting his guide for using his tribe's well. I want to leave Iraq too, but not because I never believed it was right but because I now know the Iraqis simply aren't worth it.
Yes, they were desperately hoping to find anything, even degraded anthrax -- about all they expected to find, and they would have hyped it to the hilt. They knew Blix was basically right. Tune in to the Libby trial. They knew there was no Niger connection, but needed to have Bush and Powell roll that and the "mobile labs" out, to get the justifications they need to make a war of choice. If you think this war was about a sincere belief by Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz and all these war criminals (check out the definition under Nuremberg) that we were under imminent threat from Saddam Hussein's pathetic broken country, you're a dope.
Who knew? To start with, our allies the British, who lost 2000 soldiers to a Shia uprising in 1920, and were out of there a few years later, as we will be once we are relieved of Cheney and Bush.