Cheney and Rummy BOTH use the lame "dictionary" line?

[Cocoa]

they're losing it, folks.

They're both trying to parse Cheney's boast as meaning anything other than it obviously means.

This is nearly as bad as the meaningless line about "fixed" having a different meaning in England.

Who listening to these people could possibly be persuaded in any way by this kind of argument?




Edit: even the Freepers thought it was lame...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1431008/posts

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week." The insurgency led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "may very well continue to or get more violent because they have so much to lose between now and December," he said.


My apologies to the Secretary , but thats a rather "Clinton" like statement.


29 posted on 06/26/2005 11:22:24 AM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

[knowbody0]

1. they are up to something

too much from them lately, although i truly enjoyed the senate he arings. cheney will not look into the camera, he spooks me

[wurzel]

2. Whether "last throes" is violent or not.

It still implies a short duration.

[salin]

5. indeed 12 years and "last throes" ... pretty improbable.

[salin]

3. those who really, really want to be persuaded, will be.

Those who want to believe the best from this administration - but can't make sense that the news doesn't support what they (admin) says (eg they at least recognize that things aren't going as bushco say they are going). They were just hitting cognitive dissonance - but hated being there... didn't want the full force disillusionment of recognizing these guys are lying to them... so heard the words and were... willingly persuaded. Safe from that ugly cognitive dissonance - until the next time.

[ClintonTyree]

4. And they threw...

a sanctimonious fit when Clinton posed what the definition of "is:, is. Again, they have one set of rules for themselves and a separate, highly moralized set for all others.

[Cocoa]

6. exactly right

and see my edit. You know they're in trouble when someone on FR makes this point, and no one protests the comparison to Clinton.