Cheney Wouldn't Accidentally Endorse Water-Boarding
Mr Snow said this:
"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will. You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this? No, come on."

and its said he said that "...the question put to Cheney was loosely worded."

He implies it'd go against common sense for a Veep to endorse water boarding without saying exactly why a VP wouldn't do so. He then suggests that this Veep wouldn't make that kind of a mistake.

Why bother with the 'slip-up' bit? Why not just stick to the other themes- 'this country doesn't torture' and Cheney wasn't talking about water-boarding?

It's different than Mr Snow saying that to have endorsed water-boarding would be endorsing a breach of law, policy, or morality and the VP doesn't swing that way.
Mr Snow decides to include that publicly endorsing water-boarding is too crass a "slip-up" for the VP to have made.

Why offer that as supporting rhetoric?

It brings us back to the primary point of the affair- why it's a "matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding."

The OVP wouldn't be careless enough to publicly lend support to waterboarding w/o plausible deniability, would they?
27 Oct 2006 by Simon W. Moon
0 comments