Paull
paull wrote:I am still new around here, and perhaps I will get used to, and cease to be amazed by, the way threads are started based on nothing. What is the source of the original post? It looks to be cut and pasted. Shouldn't the fact that some of its main points are absolutely wrong place some doubt on the validity of the "sources" it quotes?
For instance, the White House wasn't informed for 18 hours? Not so:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4722432.stm
There is no reason Cheney won't be around to see his term out, if his health holds up. I am pretty sure if Bumblebeeboogie had stated the source of his post, it would have been disregarded by the fairminded.
Welcome to A2K paull, glad to have you here.
As you get to know me, you will find that I nearly always post sources. In this case, there were over twenty sources with complete articles as the news was widely reported.
To read the entire article from one source, click on:
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/cheney3.htm
BBB
Thank you for that Bee. At any rate the sources are wrong about how long it took to notify the White House. It would be lovely to know who the sources are, so that when this prediction fails, we would know to ignore them in the future.
Thank you B'bee for clarifying the source. I nosed around that site for a bit and found that it is not one guy sitting in his underwear spewing forth anti-bush venom from his home computer.
Paull, not meaning to nit-pick, but the issue to me is not when the White House was informed, but when the public (via the media) was. That was the 18 or so hours. There evidentally is a lot of tension between Mr Bush's people and Mr Cheney's people. That is not good.
As to who would finish the term if Cheney were to resign: I can't think of anyone who would want the job. None of the presidential wannabees or any other member for Congress up for re-election. Perhaps somebody retiring from Congress could keep the seat warm.
