we3luvdisney
<font color=blue>I admit it. I am a <font color=pu
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 2,017
Vote For Bush or Die!
- Thread starter WillyJ
- Start date
A couple of things Dawn that I'm sure you're aware of.
1) Kerry has no hand in the running of the Heinz company.
2) His wife has no hand in the running of the Heinz company.
3) Heinz Ketchup that is distributed in the U.S. is made in the U.S.
Try something that is actually true for once.
Gotta love WND...that comment would be about...15 to 20 years ago????? If it was ever said at all.....
Here's some more from that nutty website...
I don't think I'd be using a site that uses this as a headline for an article...
Or who promotes the idea that women entering abortion clinics should not be allowed to be escorted to the door for their own protection.
Frankly, anything you post from that over the top site is meaningless.
1) Kerry has no hand in the running of the Heinz company.
2) His wife has no hand in the running of the Heinz company.
3) Heinz Ketchup that is distributed in the U.S. is made in the U.S.
Try something that is actually true for once.
Gotta love WND...that comment would be about...15 to 20 years ago????? If it was ever said at all.....
Here's some more from that nutty website...
I don't think I'd be using a site that uses this as a headline for an article...
Or who promotes the idea that women entering abortion clinics should not be allowed to be escorted to the door for their own protection.
Frankly, anything you post from that over the top site is meaningless.
we3luvdisney
<font color=blue>I admit it. I am a <font color=pu
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 2,017
"Running For Senate In 1984, Kerry Called For Cancellation Of At Least 27 Weapons Systems And Reductions In 18 Other Systems. [Kerry] recommended cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the B1 bomber, the cruise missile, MX missile, Trident submarine, Patriot air defense missile, F15 fighter plane, Sparrow missile, stealth bomber and Pershing II missile. He recommended reductions in 18 other systems including the joint tactical air system, the Bradley fighting vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the F16 fighter plane." -- RNC Research
Article
Article
Cheney's comment was ridiculous and over the line.
ThAnswr, appreciate the explanation, but I think your answer is precisely why John Kerry has not attracted more support. Your answer is largely based on opposition to what George W. Bush has done.
That's fine, but IMO, Kerry needs to give people reasons to vote FOR him in order to win. His campaign hasn't done such a great job at that to this point.
ThAnswr, appreciate the explanation, but I think your answer is precisely why John Kerry has not attracted more support. Your answer is largely based on opposition to what George W. Bush has done.
That's fine, but IMO, Kerry needs to give people reasons to vote FOR him in order to win. His campaign hasn't done such a great job at that to this point.
DisneyMomx7
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2004
- Messages
- 12,436
I think this is so typical of the Bush/Cheyney campaign. They try to scare everyone about terrorism and forget all the domestic issues. BTW we live in area that was hard hit on 9/11. My daughter lost a friend and several kids at my sons school lost parents so it's not that I don't think terrorism is real. I think the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes in Iraq (no WMD?) will cause more terrorism not less. Even having said all of that I think that Cheyney went over a line that not even staunch Bush/Cheyney supporters should support. I totally agree with John Edwards saying this is "unamerican". Isn't it funny that the two men who made every effort not to fight in a war are so eager to send other people's sons to war?
During this war in Iraq:
*1005 American soldiers are dead
* nearly 7000 have been wounded (1100 in August 2004)
* and the cost to the American taxpayer is over 200 billion dollars
(only 198 billion more than the administration said it would cost)
and some worry about ketchup.
Pete's Mom
<font color=green>I have no other name!<br><font c
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2001
- Messages
- 2,455
I didn't see it either?
Pugsley
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 27, 1999
- Messages
- 1,146
Oh, please tell me that there are some Bush/Cheney supporters who can admit that Cheneys statement was completely unacceptable. That statement is indefensible. It is a lie and a scare tactic. We ARE going to get again regardless of who is in office. And how does he explain that we got hit the first time when Bush was in office? Was that Bushs fault? It sickens me to see that there are so many people who think tactics like that are OK. Regardless of who you support, is it not possible to look at things objectively and admit it when your party is wrong?
minniepumpernickel
<font color=FF66FF>DIS Veteran<br><font color=0099
- Joined
- May 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,973
OMG, you brought up so many good points! So sorry for the losses your family and friends have experienced.
Originally posted by Pete's Mom
I didn't see it either?
Does it have to be spelled out in those exact words? What do you imagine would be the result of a devasting terrorist attack on the U.S?
I don't think it's too big a leap to assume people would die.
we3luvdisney
<font color=blue>I admit it. I am a <font color=pu
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 2,017
AP Takes Cheney Quote Out of Context
The Associated Press is at it again. In a story covering a town hall meeting with Dick Cheney yesterday, the AP accuses Cheney of saying that a Kerry presidency would result in a major terrorist attack on the United States. The AP bolsters this conclusion by chopping off the end of one of Cheney's sentences, thus causing Cheney's statement to sound inflammatory and even extremist, when it actually was neither.
The AP story opens:
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.
If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.
AP readers are not told that the AP snipped Cheney's quote in the middle of his sentence, in a way that supports the AP's interpretation of Cheney's remarks as an argument that a Kerry presidency will lead to another terrorist attack. When you read Cheney's quote in its full context, it is highly questionable whether the AP's interpretation is correct.
I heard Cheney's quote on the radio today, and later found it in a couple of places on Nexis. (I'll provide a web link when one becomes available.) [UPDATE: The White House transcript is here.] When I read the entire passage in context, it does not appear to me that Cheney is arguing that electing Kerry will lead to another terrorist attack. Rather, Cheney appears to be arguing that, if Kerry is elected, the next terrorist attack will be viewed according to a pre-9/11 mindset, and will consequently be treated as a criminal act rather than an act of war.
Here is the full quote, in context, with the most relevant portion set in bold type:
We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because 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 that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set 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.
We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election.
While Cheney's language could have been more precise, I think that his point was clearly that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter -- not that a Kerry presidency would cause another terrorist attack. At the very least, this is a plausible interpretation of Cheney's quote.
Granted, Cheney's fundamental point is that treating terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue will lead to more terrorist attacks -- over time. And, of course, the Bush Administration wants the public to believe that Americans will be safer under Bush than under Kerry.
But there is a difference between saying, on the one hand: "John Kerry will respond to terrorist attacks in an inappropriate fashion, which will eventually lead to more terrorism," and saying, on the other hand: "If you elect John Kerry, we are going to get hit with another terrorist attack." The former charge is standard campaign rhetoric. The latter charge, which implies an immediate and direct causation between a Kerry presidency and an act of terror, is one that many Americans would see as needlessly controversial and inflammatory.
By snipping the quote where they did, and declaring that Cheney made the latter, more controversial accusation, the folks at the AP deprived their readers of the ability to interpret Cheney's quote for themselves. Unless they happen to have heard the entire quote in context, as I did, AP readers will have no idea that Cheney appeared to be making a different, less inflammatory, and more defensible point.
Is it a coincidence that the AP spin on this story plays right into the hands of the Kerry/Edwards campaign??
UPDATE: The L.A. Times, New York Times, and Washington Post each have stories on Cheney's quote. The New York Times story replicates the errors of the AP story, snipping the quote so it reads, "if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." Period. Full stop.
The L.A. Times and Washington Post have misleading and overly dramatic headlines and openings. But at least they don't snip the quote mid-sentence, in the unfair way that the AP and NYT do.
Isn't there a word for snipping quotes this way?
UPDATE x2: I am told that there is at least one transcript out there that snips the quote where the AP and NYT do. Fine, but there is also at least one that doesn't. Also, the L.A. Times and Washington Post both quote Cheney as continuing his sentence beyond where the NYT and AP said he did. Also, as I said, I heard the quote myself on the radio, and his thought was clearly unbroken.
Ultimately, the question is not merely whether a transcriber took down a slight pause in a speech as a comma or a period. The question is whether a significant part of a continuous thought was omitted, thus distorting the meaning of what remains. As to the NYT and AP, the answer to that is a clear and resounding "yes."
UPDATE x3: Cori Dauber says that the snipped version is spreading like wildfire. Yup: that's what AP and NYT stories tend to do. She also says that she heard the entire quote on Imus, and I am right about the context and the unfair snipping.
UPDATE x4: The message seems to be getting out. For example: Michael J. Totten ran a post complaining about Cheney's comment. Somebody notified him about this post, and Totten had the guts to run a correction. Totten then ran the full quote, with the relevant context, and commented:
That is a lot less inflammatory. The AP ought to be smacked for that. Will they run a correction? I'm running a correction since I relied on their crappy reporting, so I certainly hope so. (Not holding my breath.)
Me neither, Michael. But thanks for being a stand-up guy and noticing the difference.
UPDATE x5: Here is a partial transcript from CNN which also indicates that the quote was Dowdified by the AP and NYT.
Article
The Associated Press is at it again. In a story covering a town hall meeting with Dick Cheney yesterday, the AP accuses Cheney of saying that a Kerry presidency would result in a major terrorist attack on the United States. The AP bolsters this conclusion by chopping off the end of one of Cheney's sentences, thus causing Cheney's statement to sound inflammatory and even extremist, when it actually was neither.
The AP story opens:
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.
If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.
AP readers are not told that the AP snipped Cheney's quote in the middle of his sentence, in a way that supports the AP's interpretation of Cheney's remarks as an argument that a Kerry presidency will lead to another terrorist attack. When you read Cheney's quote in its full context, it is highly questionable whether the AP's interpretation is correct.
I heard Cheney's quote on the radio today, and later found it in a couple of places on Nexis. (I'll provide a web link when one becomes available.) [UPDATE: The White House transcript is here.] When I read the entire passage in context, it does not appear to me that Cheney is arguing that electing Kerry will lead to another terrorist attack. Rather, Cheney appears to be arguing that, if Kerry is elected, the next terrorist attack will be viewed according to a pre-9/11 mindset, and will consequently be treated as a criminal act rather than an act of war.
Here is the full quote, in context, with the most relevant portion set in bold type:
We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because 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 that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set 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.
We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election.
While Cheney's language could have been more precise, I think that his point was clearly that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter -- not that a Kerry presidency would cause another terrorist attack. At the very least, this is a plausible interpretation of Cheney's quote.
Granted, Cheney's fundamental point is that treating terrorist attacks as a law enforcement issue will lead to more terrorist attacks -- over time. And, of course, the Bush Administration wants the public to believe that Americans will be safer under Bush than under Kerry.
But there is a difference between saying, on the one hand: "John Kerry will respond to terrorist attacks in an inappropriate fashion, which will eventually lead to more terrorism," and saying, on the other hand: "If you elect John Kerry, we are going to get hit with another terrorist attack." The former charge is standard campaign rhetoric. The latter charge, which implies an immediate and direct causation between a Kerry presidency and an act of terror, is one that many Americans would see as needlessly controversial and inflammatory.
By snipping the quote where they did, and declaring that Cheney made the latter, more controversial accusation, the folks at the AP deprived their readers of the ability to interpret Cheney's quote for themselves. Unless they happen to have heard the entire quote in context, as I did, AP readers will have no idea that Cheney appeared to be making a different, less inflammatory, and more defensible point.
Is it a coincidence that the AP spin on this story plays right into the hands of the Kerry/Edwards campaign??
UPDATE: The L.A. Times, New York Times, and Washington Post each have stories on Cheney's quote. The New York Times story replicates the errors of the AP story, snipping the quote so it reads, "if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." Period. Full stop.
The L.A. Times and Washington Post have misleading and overly dramatic headlines and openings. But at least they don't snip the quote mid-sentence, in the unfair way that the AP and NYT do.
Isn't there a word for snipping quotes this way?
UPDATE x2: I am told that there is at least one transcript out there that snips the quote where the AP and NYT do. Fine, but there is also at least one that doesn't. Also, the L.A. Times and Washington Post both quote Cheney as continuing his sentence beyond where the NYT and AP said he did. Also, as I said, I heard the quote myself on the radio, and his thought was clearly unbroken.
Ultimately, the question is not merely whether a transcriber took down a slight pause in a speech as a comma or a period. The question is whether a significant part of a continuous thought was omitted, thus distorting the meaning of what remains. As to the NYT and AP, the answer to that is a clear and resounding "yes."
UPDATE x3: Cori Dauber says that the snipped version is spreading like wildfire. Yup: that's what AP and NYT stories tend to do. She also says that she heard the entire quote on Imus, and I am right about the context and the unfair snipping.
UPDATE x4: The message seems to be getting out. For example: Michael J. Totten ran a post complaining about Cheney's comment. Somebody notified him about this post, and Totten had the guts to run a correction. Totten then ran the full quote, with the relevant context, and commented:
That is a lot less inflammatory. The AP ought to be smacked for that. Will they run a correction? I'm running a correction since I relied on their crappy reporting, so I certainly hope so. (Not holding my breath.)
Me neither, Michael. But thanks for being a stand-up guy and noticing the difference.
UPDATE x5: Here is a partial transcript from CNN which also indicates that the quote was Dowdified by the AP and NYT.
Article
Elwood Blues
"We're going to take things away from you on behal
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,964
Selective editing?
You missed a few key words there PG.
"then the danger is....."
I don't see that statement by Cheney as a given. I see it more like choosing between an old rickety bridge and a new one. Perhaps you'd cross both safely, but which one would you choose?
I see Kerry as the old rickety bridge.
Sometimes, the negatives of re-electing someone are the overriding factor.
Kerry's campaign has done a horrible job, but even given that, the question you have to ask yourself is do you want 4 more years of the same from George Bush. And I use the term "same" cautiously because the second Bush term will not have the requirement of holding down the neo-con ideologues to be re-elected.
These are not scare tactics such as Dick Cheney's ridiculous remark. This is reality. Moderates, such as Colin Powell, are leaving the Bush adminisitration and the reason why is their voices are being drowned out by the neo-cons.
The subject of "who should I vote for" has come up many, many times on these boards. Here's the answer I've always given:
If you think this country is headed in the right direction, you vote for George Bush.
If you think this country is headed in the wrong direction, you vote for Kerry.
That's it.
birdiesunshine
There's no such thing as too much Disney! :)<br><
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 1,755
Does Cheney remember who was in office the last time we got attacked? Oh, let me guess it was all President Clinton's fault. I hope the general public doesn't fall for this "scare tactic". America will get attacked again, it's just a matter of where and when. It's more likely to happen sooner if we don't get this buffoon out of office.
I hope the general public doesn't fall for this "scare tactic". America will get attacked again, it's just a matter of where and when. It's more likely to happen sooner if we don't get this buffoon out of office.So?? How does that change the quote? If what he claims is true, of course it would be a "danger".
That does nothing to change the meaning of what he said.
Practicing your cut and paste this morning We3?
Another great site...ohthatliberalmedia.com.....
-
New World Princess Week Merch & Fun For Fans at Home
-
The Little Mermaid - A Musical Adventure: My Take on Disney World's New Stage Show
-
See the World by Private Jet in 2027 with New and Returning NatGeo Expeditions
-
What Disney World Rides are CLOSED in September 2025?
-
Silver Castaway Club Members Can Book Disney Cruises For Late 2026 and Early 2027
-
New Mickey & Minnie Holiday Figures by Department 56
-
The History & Evolution of Disney's Big Thunder Mountain
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
