Republicans Like Dick, Cheney
Readers of the "zero-tolerance guide to punctuation", Eats, Shoots and Leaves will enjoy this development. The VP is in much-deserved hot water for his claim (which I mentioned and responded to here) that there is a danger of terrorist attack if we elect Kerry. He and his surrogates are claiming that he did not mean what he in fact said, and that if you listen closely to the entire statement you'll see that he only means that if we are attacked again, Kerry's approach will be reactive and not proactive. Of course that's not what he meant at all. He meant that because Kerry's approach will be reactive, terrorists will be able to launch a devastating attack here, if Kerry is elected. It couldn't be clearer from listening to, and reading, the statement.

But the White House transcript has been changed to try and emphasize their contorted interpretation. A period has been replaced by a comma. See for yourself if it makes any difference other than just muddying it up a bit. I don't think it really helps their case, but you've gotta give them points for creativity.

It did read:

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, that we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again. That we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war.

Now it reads:

It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, that we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war.

What would they say if Clinton tried such a revision, or offered such a tortured interpretation of something he said so clearly? For more sentence/logic diagramming of this statement and the ridiculous Republican argument, which is obviously the sanctioned response(I've heard it repeated by at least 3 different GOPers), see Pandagon.