How incredibly specious can you be? My link gave the complete statement. Cheney didn't speak as you've alleged, and there is a huge difference, as I noted earlier (and will again here). The lead-in to the article from CNN quotes him out of context, suggesting the error you've made, which shows the bias or carelessness of the writer, IMHO. Fortunately, the full quote is included later, so that we can see that Cheney didn't state that it IS the case, he left the reality open very much so by saying only that he THINKS it is the case.
You can pretend there is no difference all day long, but that is all you can do. Stating that something is so, and stating "I think" something is so, are two very different things.
You confuse many apples and oranges to come to write as you do, and it proves to be a largely worthless exercise trying to correct you (even without attacking your opinion directly).
Re: "...what is clear is that he thinks the war will end soon"
No, what he said was "I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time,"
In reality this is not even inconsistent with Rumsfelds statement that there would be fighting for 10 years or more.
If Rumsfeld said fighting would go on for a decade or more, he probably feels insurgency attacks will go on that long, I gather. Nothing Cheney said is in disagreement with that, since he only said he believed the "level of activity" would decline.
"Cheney said. "The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline""
There IS no real difference between the two men that can be logically drawn from the actual statements made.
It is bias and the failure to employ common logic that is at the root of your failure here.
I'm sorry I ever allowed that the men have a right to disagree with each other, from what I now see, they have that right, but they don't.
Dan B. |
