The order of events is relevant.

I did not initially ask for ANY cites. I asked if he was just ranting against Cheney, or if he had any analysis to add to his stream of thoughts. There was no indication at that time this was anything other than a typical venting, but somewhat low-key for Shaun, as I said.

He is the one that introduced the concept that this was a 'researched article' in his reply to me. So, at that point, asking for cites was a perfectly reasonable request.

“Then you should also be concerned that shaun's weak cheese adds nothing but bile to your understanding of it.”

Please don't attempt to be the judge of what “understanding” I gather from reading an article.

Thank you

I'm not sure I'm following your question, but I'm sure you would agree that I can't speak to how many right-wingers have cited sources in past discussions that I haven't seen. What I *can* say, however, is that right-wing blogs in general are not very conscientious about citing sources at all.

When ideas that have wide currency are being discussed, I think cites are optional. If I write in a post that George W. Bush is shallow, unimaginative, and incurious, you can disagree if you want to, but you cannot say to me, indignantly, “Do you have cites for this, or is this just your opinion?” I mean, you *can* say that if you want to, but if you do, you are admitting to me that you have never, ever heard this about George W. Bush before. And that would brand you as somewhat, um, uninformed, right?

When Shaun suggests that Dick Cheney is vindictive, secretive, not at all a fan of transparency in government, who on earth says, “What?! I've never heard this before! Why don't you give us some cites to prove that other people are saying this, or is it just your opinion only?”

Then you should also be concerned that shaun's weak cheese adds nothing but bile to your understanding of it.

Kathy: There are kind of two parts to it though- how many of the right wingers in your analogy have cited sources in their past discussions? If you didn't catch any source material then, then the current reiterations of the same points sound like the same old noise. You have to admit that many, many, left wing blogs would say things like this without citing the specific books that you and Sean have now mentioned, so why not include them here in the main post if that's the basis for the analysis? As AR points out, that's also a lot more honest to cite a source rather than use the same arguments without reference to the authors.

No, I haven't. And I acknowledge the point.

What is also true, however, is that when I read a right-wing blogger who is expressing ideas that I am very familiar with, that I know have been discussed widely over a long period of time, I do not go around shrieking that said right-wing blogger is “relying on other people's research instead of providing his/her own cites.” I don't need cites to prove that these ideas are held by many people and not just by that one blogger because I am well aware that those ideas are held by many people — because I read what they write. And I do read right-wing blogs and publications regularly even if I don't read their books.

“Boy, this would have been an interesting approach to have tried in high school”

Except this is not a high school project. It is about the direction of our country.

If you didn't assume anyone who doesn't agree with you on some things doesn't agree with you on all things, and must be ill-read when they don't agree with you, you wouldn't sound quite so shrill.

And common knowledge? That is defined by you as what you believe. Disagreement must be a sign of ignorance, right? That is the typical Left position on most things.

I am more well read than I know you think I am; I am just able to wade through the obvious bias and bullshit (from both sides) than you have shown an ability to do. From what I see, anything critical of Republicans in general and Bush/Cheney is particular is Gospel to you, and anything critical of the Left, Democrats, and Obama is heresy.

So, have you read Mark Levin's “Liberty and Tyranny” or “Men in Black”, Ron Paul's “The Revolution: A Manifesto”, or maybe “The Road to Serfdom”, or “Atlas Shrugged”? Anything by Thomas Sowell?

Oh, and I love Brave New World, too!

Dick Cheney always has been wound tight.

Hello, Mr. Pot. Meet Mr. Kettle.

I heartily disagree..

And I disagree because of the “string of seemingly coordinated bombings” [Reuters] that happened the day before Obama, Cheney's expressed foe, touched down in Bagdhad.

Say what you want about it, but what you cannot say is that there wasn't a security leak.

And given Cheney's recent braggings about still having authority with the CIA… oh for chrissakes kids. Stop fearing being called paranoid and just do the friggin math..

If you ever picked up a book or read a news article that didn't already echo your world view, you wouldn't have needed a cite. What Shaun wrote is common knowledge.

Allow me to hold your widdle hand for just a moment and quote from Jane Mayer's widely acclaimed “Dark Side,” which summarizes a number of other accounts:

“If anyone in America should have been prepared to respond to the attacks of September 11, 2001, it ought to have been Vice President Dick Cheney. For decades before the planes hit the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Cheney had been secretly practicing for doomsday.

. . . From the start of the administration, Cheney had confidently assumed the national security portfolio for a president with virtually no experience in that area. But Al Qaeda's attacks exposed a gaping shortcoming in the Vice President's thinking. The Soviet Union, whose threat had preoccupied Cheney and other doomsday planners in the 1980s, was gone. In its place another, more intangible danger had arisen. No one in the Bush Administration, including Cheney, had had the foresight or imagination to see Bin Laden's plot unfolding.”

He mentioned WorldCat after that post of mine post, not prior.

And my initial question still stands – does he have any analysis he is adding? If what he said is true, then he is simply repeating others research without credit. Great journalistic standards there.

And no, I don't consider is…the former vice president is losing his marbles, his Cold War mindset prevented him from having the foresight or imagination or Cheney always has put himself first and country and party second and third as insightful analysis. I consider them ad hominum attacks.

It's not what Shaun has to say; it's what the history has to tell us, and yes, chump, there are lots of people who give a crap about that. They are the same people who gave a crap about it while Cheney was vice-president (and I'd bet dollars to donuts that does not include you), and they are the same people who have figured out that presidencies and vice-presidencies have consequences for at least “three months” after they are no longer in power. Maybe even longer than that.

Austin, jeebus, Shaun just got through telling us that he based his post on research he did on WorldCat!

And aside from WorldCat, Shaun wrote nothing about Cheney that hasn't been expressed dozens of times, if not more, over the past several years. I have not yet checked out WorldCat (it sounds marvelous), but just *one book* that came out recently, Angler: The Cheney Vice-Presidency, by Barton Gellman, has most of the stuff about Cheney's personality and nature that Shaun wrote about in his post.

I think you need to get out a bit more.