Thursday, November 17, 2005

Nobody Can Say It Better Than Themselves

Wed Nov 16 2005 18:56:46 ET

Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery Tonight by Vice President Cheney

THE VICE PRESIDENT: "As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.

In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.

And the suggestion that’s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat … that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions … and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn’t afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

Those are facts.

What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.

We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.


At November 17, 2005 7:31 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

See how much clearer and coherent real people are -- when not distorted by the media demagogues? That's why, when the old media self-destructs, as it is doing presently, what will remain is the direct communications of the leaders to the public, and anyone to anyone else -- without the need, if there ever was one, of going through the media middleman. They need to create the misunderstandings for which they can claim to be the problem-solvers.

Far better that they do not create these misunderstandings, divisions and conflicts in the first place. Communications are evolving to a higher level -- personalized, rather than mass communications. People are fulfilled talking TO/WITH each other, and not, as the mass media does, talking AT the people.

That's what distinguishes the old communications (media) from the new media. It's a not-so-subtle shift in the language and communication style, that those familiar with, can easily and readily detect. In a sense, someone has created a bullshit-detector -- and the bullshitters don't know that yet -- and so go on to reveal themselves to the far more sophisticated audience they think they are manipulating and in control of.

I first was made acutely aware of this difference in communication style in the 2000 debates between Al gore and George Bush -- in which Al Gore's entire tactic was to disprespect, demean and degrade another -- any other human being. That was the moment, I, as longtime counterculture/Democrat/liberal, realized the truth of what these people were really all about. Throughout, George Bush maintained his respect and civility towards Al Gore, indicative of his regard for any person, which told me the person I wanted to entrust with the highest power and authority.

Since that time, those two directions in basic human relations, have more clearly defined themselves as the difference between the 20th century personality and culture, and the new, improved 21st century personalities and culture.

At November 17, 2005 7:47 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Many of those who thrived and dominated 20th century institutions and culture will flounder in the 21st century -- depending on their adaptability and willingness to learn new ways. Those who can't or refuse, will become staunch defenders of a status quo whose fate is to disappear. The most visible of these are the people in the current "mainstream media." They will serve as testimony and witness to change and progress -- and prove the adage, "the first shall be last."

At November 17, 2005 3:29 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Reply 6 - Posted by: redpoll, 11/17/2005 6:14:54 PM

I saw this coming in 1995, when I finally stopped working in the print media. Newspapers were increasingly out of touch with their readers; editors and reporters I worked with scorned their communities, which meant that "news" at the paper was different from "news" according to our readers; the publishing offices were increasingly filled with business managers who looked at the newspaper as a cash cow, not a reflection of the community; the reporter morphed from the hard-bitten newsman into the world-changing leftist. I knew that the print media's days were numbered long ago. We're just standing at the side of the bed now waiting for the patient to expire. That doesn't mean that news and media will vanish, but it does mean that the old-fashioned idea of the newspaper acting as the "gatekeeper of knowledge" is now dust.

At November 17, 2005 3:42 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

It's known as the Mainstream Media Coup -- the ridiculous failed attempt for them to overthrow the Presidency of the United States -- and install themselves as lifetime rulers of the American people.


Post a Comment

<< Home