Ultimately, the point of view doesn't matter as much to me as getting the idea the person knows what he or she is actually saying
In the instance of CIA Director Panetta saying that Dick Cheney's continual sedition SEEMS ALMOST AS IF he (Cheney) wants another attack on American soil to prove he's right...
Well, of course, we all know Mr Panetta is just telling us what we already know about that monster --
NO ONE has ever accused Dick Cheney of having loyalty to ANYTHING but his own advancement and enrichment and his cronies who are part of their plunderkraft ...
But of course everyone knows that no one is supposed to actually SAY THAT --
Hell, even the despicable John Wilmot, the 2d Earl of Rochester, a man who ranked right up there in despicability with Mr Cheney, said it 350 years ago:
"Any man who calls things by their rightful name will surely be hanged."
Is this a surprise? A man who has shaken down the US taxpayer for hundreds of billions of dollars for his pals, a man who insists that certain people must be tortured under his command, and not only did we put up with it then, but now we have to listen to him rave about how THAT WAS A GOOD THING.
Even Eichmann and Goebbels and Himmler didn't go so far as to try to convince us that it was a GOOD THING.
And they were also terrified sexually sick people who needed to know that there were people screaming in pain and terror because of their orders, something perhaps not true but something I tend to infer from his behavior.
But so what -- we've all INFERRED that about Mr Cheney all along -- just didn't want to acknowledge it because of the dilemma it would present to admit we know that about the man who was pulling the strings.
The point of this was hearing some Republican woman screaming at an MSNBC host about Leon Panetta for his comment (and he only said "it's ALMOST as if...") saying "He can't try to convince us he didn't infer that Mr Cheney really DID want us to be attacked..."
And I thought "Maybe he did -- but if you want me to give ANY credibility to anything you have to say, you'd have to actually know the difference between infer and imply.
Do you mean you KNOW that's what Mr Panetta actually THINKS (infers)?
Or that Mr Panetta said what he said in order to get US to believe that was actually Mr Cheney's motivation (implied)?
Whichever -- we all know in our hearts that if another major attack takes place, Mr Cheney will smile in satisfaction -- only a short step between that and wanting it to happen and then doing things to MAKE SURE it happens.
Cheney SEEMS to be a man who claims so much insight into the mental motivations of Al Quaeda as to once again bring up the thought the he actually WAS complicit in the 9-11 attacks.
After all, those 19 suicidal Saudi assholes made him and his friends IMMENSELY RICH.
Well, of course, we all know Mr Panetta is just telling us what we already know about that monster --
NO ONE has ever accused Dick Cheney of having loyalty to ANYTHING but his own advancement and enrichment and his cronies who are part of their plunderkraft ...
But of course everyone knows that no one is supposed to actually SAY THAT --
Hell, even the despicable John Wilmot, the 2d Earl of Rochester, a man who ranked right up there in despicability with Mr Cheney, said it 350 years ago:
"Any man who calls things by their rightful name will surely be hanged."
Is this a surprise? A man who has shaken down the US taxpayer for hundreds of billions of dollars for his pals, a man who insists that certain people must be tortured under his command, and not only did we put up with it then, but now we have to listen to him rave about how THAT WAS A GOOD THING.
Even Eichmann and Goebbels and Himmler didn't go so far as to try to convince us that it was a GOOD THING.
And they were also terrified sexually sick people who needed to know that there were people screaming in pain and terror because of their orders, something perhaps not true but something I tend to infer from his behavior.
But so what -- we've all INFERRED that about Mr Cheney all along -- just didn't want to acknowledge it because of the dilemma it would present to admit we know that about the man who was pulling the strings.
The point of this was hearing some Republican woman screaming at an MSNBC host about Leon Panetta for his comment (and he only said "it's ALMOST as if...") saying "He can't try to convince us he didn't infer that Mr Cheney really DID want us to be attacked..."
And I thought "Maybe he did -- but if you want me to give ANY credibility to anything you have to say, you'd have to actually know the difference between infer and imply.
Do you mean you KNOW that's what Mr Panetta actually THINKS (infers)?
Or that Mr Panetta said what he said in order to get US to believe that was actually Mr Cheney's motivation (implied)?
Whichever -- we all know in our hearts that if another major attack takes place, Mr Cheney will smile in satisfaction -- only a short step between that and wanting it to happen and then doing things to MAKE SURE it happens.
Cheney SEEMS to be a man who claims so much insight into the mental motivations of Al Quaeda as to once again bring up the thought the he actually WAS complicit in the 9-11 attacks.
After all, those 19 suicidal Saudi assholes made him and his friends IMMENSELY RICH.
posted by Saintperle at
7:01 PM
