Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 4, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

CHENEY THE NUANCED....Dick Cheney, commenting today about the British sailors and marines who were seized by Iran a couple of weeks ago: "There's considerable evidence that they were, in fact, in Iraqi territorial waters when this happened."

"Considerable evidence"? Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but does this sound like the Big Time we know and love? Wouldn't "incontrovertible evidence" or "ironclad proof" be more his style if he did, in fact, believe that the boat was in Iraqi waters? What does his sudden embrace of nuance mean?

Kevin Drum 1:52 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Perhaps Haliburton has been promised a big oil services contract from Khameini.

Posted by: gregor on April 4, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I thought that the big problem was, we knew exactly where the sailors were in coordinate terms, but there is ambiguity about who really rightly controls what (given especially the interplay of land boundaries and territorial waters boundaries). Am I right? And, BTW, who has posted the exact coordinates of where they were when "plucked from the waters."?

Posted by: Neil B. on April 4, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

i thin what he mant to say was "there is NO DOUBT that it's possible that they might have been in iraqi waters

Posted by: benjoya on April 4, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

No, he only saves that kind of rhetoric for Democrats.

Posted by: DR on April 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

It's the same ol' Dick.

When he uses more absolute declaratives, he prefaces them with "frankly" or "if you will," which he did not do here.

Posted by: Mimir on April 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

It means the Brits were outside Imam Khomeini Harbor and were greeted with flowers.

Posted by: Andrew J. Lazarus on April 4, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

I dunno, Dick often peppers his insane monologues with reasonable-sounding phrases.

[channeling Dick]I think you'll find, Tim, that when you look at all the evidence, everything we know up to this point, taken into consideration, that you'll agree, and I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion, that a nuclear first strike against Iran is clearly the wisest course of action available to us right now.[/dick]

Posted by: Royko on April 4, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

It shows that he's been spending more time than usual with lawyers lately.

Posted by: Slothrop on April 4, 2007 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Don't trust him - they knew where Bin Laden was too, remember?

Posted by: rusrus on April 4, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Or it could mean that there is, in fact, ABSOLUTELY NO evidence to that effect, and he's just making as exaggerated a case as he can without looking like a complete fool.

Posted by: bleh on April 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

What does his sudden embrace of nuance mean?


Maybe he isn't quite ready to invade Iran, or maybe he doesn't care about British sailors?

Posted by: majun on April 4, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

I think Neil B. has the best answer here. The evidence seems quite clear that the British were in waters that the Iraqis and most of the world consider Iraqi, but that the Iranians and (maybe) some other countries disagree and regard that as Iranian territory. It sounds like someone from the State Department got to Cheney and convinced him to use rhetoric that reflected that reality.

Posted by: jalrin on April 4, 2007 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Now you're getting it, mhr!

What, precisely, have *conservatives* been right about in the last six years?

Be specific, and cite your sources.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B.: I thought that the big problem was, we knew exactly where the sailors were in coordinate terms,

What the public has seen are photos of GPS read outs, the British one of a helicopter GPS and the Iranian one of a British hand-held GPS on the Iranian boat. What we don't have is proof of where the copter and the boat were when the photos were taken.

The fact that the Iranians released a set of coordinates that turned out to be in Iraqi waters and then released a different set of coordinates showing them in Iranian waters suggests that the Iranians were wrong, but neither party can be believed without better proof than we have seen, because neither has much of a record of truth-telling.

If Cheney is being nuanced, there are two choices: He has a brain tumor that is pressing on his macho center, or Haliburton is about to make its ongoing contracts with Iran public now that it is headquartered in Dubai.

Posted by: anandine on April 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he doesn't know.

Despite what a lot of liberals (and other people) think, I really believe the Bush administration wants to avoid a conflict with Iran.

Posted by: Frank J. on April 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney has earned the "opposite" filter. Anything he says is determined to be a lie unless otherwise proved.

Also, the SOB owes me my share of the two trillion in oil subsidies he gave away in Iraq.

Posted by: Matt on April 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS beat me to it.

Atta boy mhr. You are slowly but surely getting it.

Posted by: gregor on April 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Haven't I read that we have satellites watching all of this stuff? It seems pretty certain that the fact that we haven't released satellite visuals indicates that they were in Iranian waters. Cheney further confirms this by not making his statement absolute --- apparently because he's more conscious of legal repercussions of outright lying.

Posted by: catherineD on April 4, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the British were in Iranian waters when they were seized. Maybe the Iranians have refused to give them up until Britain (and its mutant offspring) backs off from its assertion that they were in Iraqi waters. Maybe Cheney is dragging his feet toward the dnouement. Maybe they won't be released until both nations back up the British captives' "confessions."

So many maybes. So many people whose lives are in Cheney's clammy hands.

Posted by: aaaaardvaaark on April 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

"There's considerable evidence that they were, in fact, in Iraqi territorial waters when this happened."

This is the reasoned commentary of a seasoned public official. He didn't even point out that the British Navy is rarely, if ever, lost--what with their considerable skill and training.

That's the point that needs to be made--the sons and daughters of the British Navy are the heirs to a tradition of Nelson and Hood. What Iranian sailor could possibly compete with that? Iran is lucky the British aren't amassing ships in the Persian Gulf as a result of this outrage.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

If anyone actually belives Cheney when he says "Considerable evidence" or some varition of that, deserves to get screwed. Has that man been right about anything he has been that certain of? Heck, if sounds certain people should use that as a clue that it is the least likely possibility.

Posted by: ET on April 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

So Norman, what do you think about this?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the "nuance" problem is someone trying to read a conspiracy into the words "considerable evidence."

Posted by: rnc on April 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Did anyone see Cheney lurking in the background during Bush's presser? At one point a news camera zoomed in on him watching his puppet to make certain Bush got all his talking points correct. It was the weirdest thing, and not in a good sense.

...British aren't amassing ships in the Persian Gulf... Norman Rogers at 2:40 PM

Yup, that would put Iranians in danger of dying from laughter.

Posted by: Mike on April 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney further confirms this by not making his statement absolute --- apparently because he's more conscious of legal repercussions of outright lying.

With any other group of criminals, that may be the case. But this particular crowd of assclowns has repeatedly demonstrated that they care fuck-all about the consequences of lying. I literally never realized it was possible to lie with virtually every waking breath. But now I know.

Posted by: Baldrick on April 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

the sons and daughters of the British Navy are the heirs to a tradition of Nelson and Hood. What Iranian sailor could possibly compete with that?

I suppose the ones who captured those sons and daughters of the British Navy. Apparently they didn't put up much of a fight before allowing themselves to be used as pawns of the Iranian regime.

Posted by: Neutral Observer on April 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

...liberals tell the truth. Conservatives lie. It's as simple as that. Liberals are good. Conservatives are bad. Liberals love. Conservatives hate. Liberals are tolerant. Conservatives are intolerant...

And people say that mhr can't learn.

Posted by: ckelly on April 4, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

From the Hormonal Citizen link:

In his April 3 Post column -- headlined "Where's Winston?" -- Peters called the captives "wankers" and asserted that they "wimped out in a matter of days and acquiesced in propaganda broadcasts for their captors," a reference to videos aired on Iranian television in which several of the captives said that they had entered Iranian territory. Peters continued:

I agree. The British sailors were, in fact, wankers if they surrendered without a fight. I believe they killed or injured 300-400 Iranian boat jockeys in the incident--am I getting that wrong? They probably had to surrender because the female was nagging them.

"Jingoism aside, I can't imagine any squad of U.S. Marines behaving in such a shabby, cowardly fashion. Our Marines would have fought to begin with. Taken captive by force, they would've resisted collaboration. To the last man and woman." He went on to write that the "once-proud" British military has "collapsed to a sorry state."

The modern-day Marine Corps is pretty candy-assed, if you want to know the truth. The US Army has combat support units that are tougher than the entire Marine Corps. I don't mean physically--I mean mentally. The best of the best are the US Army's armoured units, which could simply drive in big figure 8s and fire at will at the assembled US Marines and defeat them en masse.

I blame the need for "sensitivity training" and "don't ask, don't tell" policies which have hollowed out the fighting spirit of our military and left us with tens of thousands of whiners who refuse to deploy.

A good number of our military members do a pretty good job, though, and it would be unfair to taint them by associating them with the losers who volunteered and who now refuse to do their part and fight the war they were ordered to fight by their Commander in Chief.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

What does his sudden embrace of nuance mean?
—Kevin Drum

Cheney is a pathological liar. So who cares?

Posted by: JeffII on April 4, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

I blame the need for "sensitivity training" and "don't ask, don't tell" policies which have hollowed out the fighting spirit of our military and left us with tens of thousands of whiners who refuse to deploy.

Sounds like those wimps need your help. Although I'm guessing that a brave keyboard commando such as yourself will enlist approximately never.
Let the excuses commence...

Posted by: Neutral Observer on April 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Matt Yglesias observed Bush using similar verbiage yesterday, as in "there has been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing" re: the US Attorneys matter, opining that what Bush should have said is there was no wrongdoing.

Now we have Big Time using similarly cagey language; as Kevin notes, Cheney Yourself and nuance is like oil and water.

Posted by: DJ Jazzy Jazeera on April 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

What Cheney meant to say was "We know the British sailors were seized, and we know where they were seized. They were seized in the area of Iraqi territorial waters, or North, East, South, or West of there."

Posted by: cmdicely on April 4, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Where was he lurking when he said this?

Posted by: Kenji on April 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Like what CatherineD said: evidence from GPS and satellites of where the capture took place would be easy to come by. This evidence, if showing the British soldier in Iraqi waters, would be good for the case the British and US are making.

They have never released this evidence. Therefore, they don't have any. They probably have evidence of the opposite - British troops in Iranian waters.

Posted by: luci on April 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

The hostages aren't freed yet. Like a prudent leader, Cheney is simply using temperate language until the situation is peacefully resolved.

Posted by: Al on April 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

The modern-day Marine Corps is pretty candy-assed, if you want to know the truth.

This from the guy who admittedly used his father's connections to stay out of Vietnam. I'll give you one thing Normie; you know "candy-assed". It describes you to a "T".

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on April 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

The modern-day Marine Corps is pretty candy-assed, if you want to know the truth.

Stormin'Norman... I love it when you talk sexy!
You make my old hero Ollie North look like a puppy with sad eyes...

How'd you like to get together for some "prayer"!

By the way, you never answered my question the other day:

What caliber is your keyboard sailor?!?!

Posted by: Monica Goodling@whitehouse.gov on April 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Please don't feed the troll. He's on a special Chinese gluten-free diet.

Posted by: zookeeper on April 4, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl-- I know one case where conservatives were right: they were right to invade Afghanistan after terrrorists based in afghanistan took down the WTC with passenger planes. Of course, 75+% of liberals were in favor of that, too. So conservatives were right, but not uniquely right.

Where many conservatives-but by no means all-went wrong was to see the WTC attack as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Posted by: mac on April 4, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "Dick Cheney, commenting today about the British sailors and marines who were seized by Iran a couple of weeks ago ..."

Obviously what Kevin meant to say here is what he's been saying repeatedly in his every post on the subject: "the British HOSTAGES who were TAKEN HOSTAGE by Iran in the HOSTAGE CRISIS that began a couple of weeks ago ..."

Or perhaps Kevin has taken a new cue from the Bush administration's Office Of Pushing Emotional Buttons Through Bogus Use Of Focus-Group-Tested Inflammatory Language, and is being more "nuanced", like Cheney.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 4, 2007 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'd say it means there's actually "iron clad" proof that they were in Iranian waters. And that they expect or are worried that such evidence will become public. I can't imagine anything else getting Cheney to use such weak language. This is the guy who said we knew for a fact Iraq had WMD when he probably knew that they didn't have anything significant. I imagine in that case he imagined there would at least be enough old, leftover chemical or biological stuff to claim he was right all along. Or maybe he just didn't give a damn and thought they'd get away with it (which they pretty much did).

Posted by: francis on April 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't that the same phrase used regarding the Atta meeting in Prague? or the Al Quada training camps in Iraq? or the Niger story?.......

Posted by: Diane on April 4, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

luci: Like what CatherineD said: evidence from GPS and satellites of where the capture took place would be easy to come by.

As I said before, the public GPS "evidence" is unsupported photos of GPS readouts. We don't know when they were taken, and we can't trust either party to tell us the truth.

We do have satellites, but the ones they might use for this kind of surveillance aren't stationary and available at a moment's notice. They circle the earth more or less every 90 minutes and get over about the same spot more or less once a day.

We do have lots of them, but to have one in position to photograph this spot during the few minutes when the capture took place would still be a matter of luck.

We would also have to know about the capture in time to tell the satellite to aim its camera at the right spot.

And if we did have that much luck, the public would have to rely on official reading of the photo. Someone would have to draw a line(real or figurative) on the photo out into the water and say this is the border, but the Brits say the point of capture was only 1.7 miles from the border, so it would be easy for the photo analyst to fudge it in a photo of that scale. We could trust it exactly as much as we trust anything else the administration says about intelligence, ie not much.

Posted by: anandine on April 4, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously what Kevin meant to say here is what he's been saying repeatedly in his every post on the subject: "the British HOSTAGES who were TAKEN HOSTAGE by Iran in the HOSTAGE CRISIS that began a couple of weeks ago ..."

Well, perhaps if he had actually SAID the word "hostages" you would have a case. Do you enjoy tearing up your team?

Have at it, genius. When the moonbats tear Drum a new hiney-hole, I just want to sit back and marvel at how unhinged and wonky-eyed they are when they do it.

Bra-vo!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

A guy that can shoot his buddy in the face by accident could certainly use the incorrect word.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on April 4, 2007 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

I blame the need for "sensitivity training" and "don't ask, don't tell" policies which have hollowed out the fighting spirit of our military and left us with tens of thousands of whiners who refuse to deploy." said non-deployed Norman Bates.

Bush was on NPR this very morning continuing to advocate Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He supports it.

Posted by: Zit on April 4, 2007 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

We do have satellites, but the ones they might use for this kind of surveillance aren't stationary and available at a moment's notice. They circle the earth more or less every 90 minutes and get over about the same spot more or less once a day.

Are you high? There are more satellites looking down at that part of the world from orbit than there are satellites delivering crappy television to the entire United States.

The GPS network consists of satellites that are in orbit in a consistent pattern all over the globe; this is why the damned thing can tell me where I am when I am driving in the ditch after having too many Gentlemen Jack's and a Water Back.

Here--learn something:

The baseline satellite constellation consists of 24 satellites positioned in six earth-centered orbital planes with four operation satellites and a spare satellite slot in each orbital plane. The system can support a constellation of up to thirty satellites in orbit. The orbital period of a GPS satellite is one-half of a sidereal day or 11 hours 58 minutes. The orbits are nearly circular and equally spaced about the equator at a 60-degree separation with an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. The orbital radius (i.e. distance from the center of mass of the earth to the satellite) is approximately 26,600 km.

With the baseline satellite constellation, users with a clear view of the sky have a minimum of four satellites in view. It’s more likely that a user would see six to eight satellites. The satellites broadcast ranging signals and navigation data allowing users to measure their pseudoranges in order to estimate their position, velocity and time, in a passive, listen-only mode.

Ground Control Network:

At the heart of the Ground Control Network is the Master Control Station (MCS) located at the Schriever (formerly named Falcon) Air Force Base near Colorado Springs , Colorado . The MCS operates the system and provides command and control functions for the satellite constellation.

The satellites in orbit are continuously tracked from six USAF monitor stations spread around the globe in longitude: Ascension Island , Diego Garcia, Kwajalein , Hawaii , Cape Canaveral and Colorado Springs . The monitor stations form the data collection component of the control network. A monitor station continuously makes pseudorange measurements to each satellite in view. There are two cesium clocks referenced to GPS system time in each monitor station. Pseudorange measurements made to each satellite in view by the monitor station receiver are used to update the master control station’s precise estimate of each satellite’s position in orbit.

Pretty impressive, eh? No Mullah ever built a thing like the GPS network. In fact, the only thing a Mullah ever built was a tolerance for cheap wine and a resistance to naughtily gyrating chicks wearing gunnysacks.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't that the same phrase used regarding the Atta meeting in Prague?

Not exactly, that was "overwhelming evidence" and "pretty well confirmed."

All equal amount bullshit, however.

Posted by: Mr Furious on April 4, 2007 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the nuanced approach is some Zen thing he dreamed up while lurking in the shrubbery:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/washington/04prexy.html?ex=1333339200&en=5e7b72a052242f33&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

I also like how in this Times story, they make no mention of him in the photo caption, like it's perfectly normal for the Vice President of the United States to be hovering in the bushes like the thug in one of those home-alarm system ads. All he needs is the black mask and the striped Hamburglar shirt.

Posted by: sullijan on April 4, 2007 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

NR.. "tolerance for cheap wine..." 5:15pm

??

I thought they didn't drink ethanol-based drinks, so how could they build up a tolerance?

And here it is in a nutshell folks....

the folks who hate ethanol vs the folks who despise THC laden plant materials.

THAT is the problem, world wide.

Why can't we get along?

Those who like booze should be able to drink it in moderation, and those who prefereefer, should not be degraded.

(note: I really don't condone either, just trying to make a point)

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 4, 2007 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

How could they not know whether they were in Iraqi waters? What about the dotted line right there in the water like it is on the maps? Are they blind?

Posted by: TJM on April 4, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Frank... er, I mean Norman... I luv you babe!
Keep that man-sized keyboard coming babe...
My lips are getting hot...
Oh babe...
Oh...
Oh...
Fuck me babe....

Posted by: Hot Lips Goodling@whitehouse.gov on April 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: The GPS network consists of satellites that are in orbit in a consistent pattern all over the globe; ... At the heart of the Ground Control Network is the Master Control Station

True but irrelevant. Neither of these systems is designed to take pictures of the ground. In the lead-up to our invasion of Iraq, one claim the US made was that we couldn't find the WMDs because Saddam was moving them around and knew when the photo satellites were going to be overhead and timed his truck movements to coincide with dark periods.

Posted by: anandine on April 4, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Standing in the shadows of love, lurking Cheney eyes his dear puppet lovingly.
[scroll down]

...the losers who volunteered and who now refuse to do their part and fight the war they were ordered to fight by their Commander in Chief. Norman Rogers at 2:57 PM

Spoken like a true hero of the 101st fighting keyboarders. Purple Heart for you, Hero of the State.

Posted by: Mike on April 4, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Iran is lucky the British aren't amassing ships in the Persian Gulf as a result of this outrage.

This is perfectly true. Syria also has abundant cause for rejoicing at this result, as does Saudi Arabia.

A nation that is probably even happier at the result is Britain. Perhaps even more so the United States, who would undoubtedly be sucked into any conflict in support of their British allies, who would be quite SOL trying to take war tout seul to Iran in Iranian waters, airspace, and terrain: heirs to Nelson or no.

Canada is also lucky, as are Korea and Malaysia. Really, everyone on earth is better off that Britain is not amassing ships in the Persian Gulf and that hot heads did not prevail in making this incident become something other than what it has always been likely to become, nothing at all.

Posted by: Trickster on April 4, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney knows they were in Iraqi territory because they were at one of Saddam's WMD depots. He was told by a Czech informant who swears he saw the Brits on the Iraqi side of the border, though it might have been a fishing boat full of used-car salesmen.

Posted by: biggerbox on April 4, 2007 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl-- I know one case where conservatives were right: they were right to invade Afghanistan after terrrorists based in afghanistan took down the WTC with passenger planes.

I beg to differ.

1. The Taliban offered to give up Osama if Bush provided evidence of his culpability in 9/11. Bush refused.

2. Even if military action was necessary against AQ in Afganistan in order to bring Osama to justice, it is not clear that it was necessary to overthrow the Taliban.

3. Even if it was necessary to overthrow the Taliban in order to bring Osama to justice, their overthrow could only be justified if the US spent the time and resources necessary to transition from the Taliban gvmt to a stable gvmt in Afganistan. We did not.

4. Even if all the above was necessary, the Bush admin (as many of us knew back in 2001) was (and is) constitutionally incapable of, well, doing the job right, which means that it was wrong for *them* to do it. That Osama is still at large, AQ is still intact, and the Taliban is well on its way back into power is evidence enough that the invasion of Afganistan had nothing to do with preventing terrorism, and instead had everything to do with whetting the appetite of 'mericans for further invasions as part of the PNAC vision for US global dominance in the 21st century.

Posted by: Disputo on April 4, 2007 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
Isn't that the same phrase used regarding the Atta meeting in Prague?

Not exactly, that was "overwhelming evidence" and "pretty well confirmed."

So, clearly, this is even shoddier evidence than the Prague meeting, since its pretty clear that "considerable" evidence is weaker than "overwhelming" evidence.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 4, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

There is also considerable evidence that shopping in Baghdad is no different than shopping in Indiana.

Posted by: Qwerty on April 4, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Frank... er, I mean Norman... I luv you babe!
Keep that man-sized keyboard coming babe...
My lips are getting hot...
Oh babe...
Oh...
Oh...
Fuck me babe....

Wow. What talent. That's just priceless comedy right there, sir.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 4, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Translation (I've learned to speak Cheneyse):

"incontrovertible evidence that they were...in Iraqi waters" = no proof they were in Iraqi waters

"considerable evidence that they were...in Iraqi waters" = credible evidence that they were, in fact, in Iranian waters

Posted by: nocturnation on April 4, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers:

Wow. What talent. That's just priceless comedy right there, sir.

Poor vile fuck who can't even recognize that his posts are being treated for what they are: brute-dumb surrealism that deserves only contempt.

Man.
This cat is dumber than dog shit.

Posted by: God on April 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Late to the party:

Cheney's "sudden embrace of nuance" means that he's really pissed at Tony Blair.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 5, 2007 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

Poor vile fuck who can't even recognize that his posts are being treated for what they are: brute-dumb surrealism that deserves only contempt.

Aw, poor widdle baby. Didums poopy in its pants again?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 5, 2007 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

I believe the coordinates the Iranian's originally provided, but then redacted, were in Iraq waters.

Posted by: aaron on April 5, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Cheney: "What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action."

Translation: I would once again choose to make myself and my good friends in the oil bidness hundreds of billions of dollars richer regardless of the damage to the interests of the American people. My money's abroad in non-dollar denominated investments anyway; what do I care?

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 5, 2007 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly