posted
FYI and just barely related to this thread: A jatraquero gave Cheney and his family a trailride on Tuesday and they were able to sit a trot. They also tip well.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The went off road horseback riding, and knew how to stay on a trotting horse (which is a stride with a bit of up and down to it).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe that means going trout-fishing and catching something? ...while sitting down? ...which they got to by riding on a trail with four-wheelers? And then the hosts fried up the trout for them after?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
A trot is a two beat gait on a horse that lots of people look like they'll fall off during. This was at a pay duderanch where said jatraquero is working this summer.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay now I'm annoyed derailed at the second post.
IP: Logged |
posted
Well it's not a very interesting topic, lots of people watch the Daily Show, this is nothing new, it was a different situation back then.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See the Daily Show coverage of this, with the subsequent roasting of Cheney's biographer?
Jon doesn't get actively angry very often when he interviews, but it's always interesting when it happens. And in this case I wholeheartedly agree with him.Head here and click on Stephen F. Hayes.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well it's not a very interesting topic, lots of people watch the Daily Show, this is nothing new, it was a different situation back then.
Without embroiling myself in an Iraq debate, saying "it was different back then" is utter sophistry. Cheney basically made the same anti-war case that was made before the invasion of Iraq, and guess what, he was right.Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand this. The reasons Cheney gave back then turned out to be right for the 2003 invasion. What, then, about the situation was different?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: Well it's not a very interesting topic, lots of people watch the Daily Show, this is nothing new, it was a different situation back then.
We may have had stronger reasons for going into Iraq*, but that is no excuse for failing to plan for what it seems he knew was a likely outcome of an invasion. And it makes it pretty clear that he knew that we wouldn't be "greeted as liberators."
And it certainly puts paid to all the "no one could have anticipated this" crap.
*I don't think we did, but that argument could be made.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:FYI and just barely related to this thread: A jatraquero gave Cheney and his family a trailride on Tuesday and they were able to sit a trot. They also tip well.
I wonder if Cheney tips better on trips in which he manages to shoot someone.
Needless to say, there wouldn't be an opportunity to find out on this trip, since I'm sure the Mrs. has forbade him from accidentally shooting family members.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, I would imagine he tips less then, he already gave them some sort of compensation. A pain in the butt.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Agreed, and it provest, to me at least, that I'd never be half the interviewer that John is. I probably would have lost my head and ordered his immediate execution.
This is probably also why I'll never get into politics.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, honestly, though I am by no means an expert on Iraq, I knew (and accurately predicted) many of the problems that occurred when they were selling the lines that we'd be greeted as liberators and that it would easy and that democracy would almost immediately flourish, I didn't know that Dick Cheney was saying the same things 9 years ago.
I really do have to wonder why the heck not one reporter (or, you know, someone in freaking Congress) said "Well, what about what you said in 1994?"
I'd love for someone to ask them this. I get the feeling the only people who would do it are Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert though.
---
Additionally, I've got to wonder what was going on inside Mr. Cheney's head. Did he forget? Why the heck didn't we plan for these things? Did he just not care about America's interests, fighting terrorism, or the troops they sent over?
I mean, it's gone beyond gross negligence and extremely likely dishonesty and into the realm of where they seem to ahve been thinking "Who really cares about doing this correctly?"
I mean, I don't really have another explanation that makes sense any more. Did they just not care about serving America's interests? Do they value their war so little?
Why else do you send incompetent/untrained people who are politically reliable to serve in key areas while pushing out experts because they will tell the truth about things? How else do you not plan for this chaos that you apparently knew about 9 years beforehand? Did they set out to fail?
And how do you get up before the American people, lie to them with rosy predictions, and then as the things you knew about come to pass and your predictions all turn out false, call them traitors or say that they are only encouraging the terrorists when they question the way you are doing things?
posted
I figured most everyone had seen this. The situation hadn't changed, the situation on the ground was the same, there's no excuse. But this is just icing in the cake. At least half the country doesn't believe a word Cheney or Bush say anymore, so does this really surprise anyone? It's just more proof that they are liars, or at least strong misleaders.
Half the country in a recent poll thinks the Army is probably going to lie in their report this fall. They say, even before seeing it, that they think Petreaus will probably try and make the situation look better than it really is, and that even if he was telling the truth, it wouldn't change their minds.
I think it's sad that something like this isn't even news anymore. We trust them so little now a days that when more conclusive proof comes along to show us how incompetent and underhanded they are, we just shrug our shoulders and say "yeah that sounds about right."
Jon summed it up perfectly in his debate with Hayes. But what are we going to do about it now? I think those who were against the war from the start, those who asked questions from the start and criticized from the start know they were and are right about everything, but other than personal satisfaction it doesn't really get us anything other than motivation to be even louder next time, to make sure a next time doesn't happen. But when more proof like this comes along...it just confirms something that a lot of us already consider confirmed. This particular thing is just so shocking because Cheney 180'd himself almost perfectly, I'm a little surprised this hasn't gotten more mainstream press coverage, but I guess Lindsey Lohan or Paris Hilton are doing something too important at the moment for us to worry about it.
I think it will be hysterical to watch Tony Snow backpeddle on this one, if he takes it up at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, It's almost not about them anymore. It's about the people like Cheney's biographer or dp here who still support them in things like this. It's almost enough to make you question their patriotism.
---
Edit: And it's also about the "real" reporters and members of Congress and could one freaking person do their job during the lead up to the war.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, my most charitable assessment is that VP Cheney and others in the administration, feeling that an invasion was necessary and feeling that the public wouldn't support an invasion if we knew the truth, kept the truth from us. "For our own good."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
boots, That's not my main issue here. The government has been lying to get us into wars since the Creel Commission and before. I can even get when you think a war is necessary, spinning the truth and even outright lying, like he did, to get the pubilc behind it. What I can't get is knowing that bad things were likely going to happen and then not preparing for them.
What really concerns me here is Mr. Cheney knowing these things were going to happen and then not making adequate plans to deal with the situation. We're talking about people who knew there was almost definitely going to be an insurgency who banned even the use of the word "insurgency" among planners of the war.
For all their talk about this being an all important clash of civilizations and the thing which our future depends upon, they don't seem to have taken basic steps to make it come out okay.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't surprise me, they're pretty good at it.
Squick -
quote:Edit: And it's also about the "real" reporters and members of Congress and could one freaking person do their job during the lead up to the war.
Good point. And I think the best thing we can do is vote for anyone but the incumbent in any district with a rep, or any state with a senator, who didn't adequately question the details of the war. Voting for it alone isn't necessarily a sign of poor judgement, but not following up is. But I think booting these guys out of Congress is the only way. You can't write letters, you can't chastise them, you have to kick them out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I have Durbin and Obama as Senators and Jan Schakowsky as a Representative. She was at the peace protests with us!
I (embarrassingly) wrote to Rep Schakowsky asking her to support a particular piece of legislation. I got a gentle response that she would since she was a sponsor of the bill in question. I have pretty much given up on writing anything but "good job" letters.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
