QandO
Questions and Observations| « Nice timing, after all.... | Main | Where's Mulder and Scully when you need 'em? » |
|
August 17, 2004 War of the Words Wow ... its getting a hostile out there. Ex-Navy fighter pilot Sen. Tom Harkin called Vice President Cheney a coward who dodged military service but is willing to be tough "with someone else's kid's blood." Two things to note ... Cheney attacked what Kerry said. Harkin attacked Cheney. Why? Because what Kerry said was stupid, so stupid Harkin couldn't defend it, sohe has no other way to show his displeasure but by calling Cheney names. Someone needs to teach Harkin a lesson and give him an hour of time-out and a mandatory nap after his snack. Talk about kindergarden stuff. I hope Cheney tells him to "#@&% Off!" The Bush team response: Team Bush replied that Harkin resorted to name-calling because he cannot defend Kerry's votes on Iraq or intelligence issues. Seems to be the MO these days .... ignore the facts or issue brought up and kill the messenger. Drag his name through the mud, call him a coward, question his patriotism, call him everything but a child of God. The hope? That you to will ignore the facts or issues the "coward" brought out and focus on the irrelevant, such as the name calling. Like those "cowardly" Swift Boat Vets for Bush, er Truth. Interestingly enough, that is precisely what MoveOn.org plans on doing:
The liberal group MoveOn.org, meanwhile, airs a new ad today in Ohio, Wisconsin and West Virginia attacking Bush for failing to condemn millionaire Texas GOP donor Robert Perry for funding a group of vets trying to discredit Kerry's Vietnam War record. So Bush is being condemened in a 527 ad for not condemning another 527 ad? Only MoveOn.org would miss the irony there. I'm still wondering when McCain served in Kerry's boat since that's the left's baseline for having the knowldege to speak out against Kerry. I'm also clueless as to what relevancy who paid for the ad has to do with the facts brought forward by the SBVT. They either are true or they aren't. If they aren't they should be very easy to refute. Notice McCain says nothing about whether the ad contains any truth or not. He just finds it dishonorable. I'd only say that if Sen. McCain finds the possiblity of faking medals and combat reports (not to mention whereabouts on Christmas night) to be honorable, he and I have different concepts of the same word. Speaking of war heros and ex-fighter pilots, I just heard Rep. Duke Cunningham talking about John Kerry's record as presented by the Swift Boat Vets. Cunningham, if you're not familiar with his record, was our first fighter ace in Vietnam, shooting down 5 MIGs. He won the Navy Cross (2nd only to the Medal of Honor), 2 Silver Stars and a Purple Heart. Unlike Kerry, it took Cunningham 300 combat missions to win those medals. Anyway, today he used precisely the same analogy as I have about his wingman and the Swift boats. He said those in the other Swift boats were as much of the action as anyone on Kerry's boat, just as his wingman was as much a part of the downing of those 5 MIGs as he was. Secondly, he says you don't have to believe either side, just read the combat reports. Per Cunningham, the reports do not support Kerry's side. And last but not least: Retired Navy Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, responded, "We were there. We served alongside John Kerry and we know the history of his service. We will not be silenced." Good. The war of the words will continue unabated. Wonder which side will finally threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue? |
Here's what Cheney said a few days ago on the Hugh Hewitt show:
HH: Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that
means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?
VP: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area,
and we are very much aware of its sensitivity. On the other hand, a lot of
people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the
shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S.
commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the
extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the
shrine itself.
****
I am not making this up.
Remember, the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror. And Cheney says we are being sensitive in the way we are fighting the war. And yet team Bush ridicules Kerry for saying he would be sensitive in fighting the War on Terror.
Why is Dick Cheney such a hypocrite? Why aren't we simply reducing the Shrine of Ali to rubble? Seriously. If Cheney is complaining about Kerry's statement, then why the hell not carpet bomb the whole freakin' place?
Could it be that we need to be sensitive? Or is Cheney lying?
Pathetic.
Posted by: mklutra at August 17, 2004 03:03 PM
I thought Cheney's comment was--at best--pretty unresponsive to Kerry's statement. At worst, he was misconstruing what Kerry had said.
From an administration that touts the "hearts and minds" thing, it's funny to hear them criticizing the other guy for talking about "sensitivity".
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 17, 2004 03:08 PM
mklutra,
Could it be that we need to be sensitive?No, we do not need to be sensitive. It is the sites themselves that are sensitive. To the folks holed up inside we should be decidedly insensitive. :-P
Posted by: D at August 17, 2004 03:16 PM
mkultra: That's just really poor. A top secret facility is called a "sensitive area". I mean, let's get real here for heaven sake.
In VN there were designated "no fire" areas (I'm sure John Kerry didn't understand what THEY meant either). Why? Becuse they were deemed to be "sensitive areas" meaning they usually had some sort of religious ediface, such as a Buddhist Temple or the like.
Try context and meaning next time instead of just going for a shotgun word search on Google.
Posted by: McQ at August 17, 2004 03:23 PM
By the way....When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," Harkin said yesterday
Didn't Harken endorse Dean, who spent Vietnam skiing?
Posted by: shark at August 17, 2004 03:24 PM
Ok, let me get this straight: It's ok to conduct the WoT sensitively, as we are doing in Najaf, it's just not ok to say that we should conduct the WoT sensitively, as we are doing in Najaf.
I think I got it now. No wonder I was confused.
Posted by: mkultra at August 17, 2004 06:02 PM
So I guess if I say murder is wrong, then acknowledge that someone was murdered, I'm a hypocrite in mklutra's eyes?
Note to mklutra: place both hands on cheeks, pull outward, remove head...
There, you can see clearly now and the smell isn't as bad anymore...
Posted by: Chris at August 17, 2004 06:04 PM
You're right, Chris, I've heard methane inhalation can cause you to write like mklutra.
Mklutra: Uh, no, you're still confused. But someday, we all hope, you will get it.
Posted by: McQ at August 17, 2004 06:10 PM
Guys, MKUltra has a good point. There's a difference between being "sensitive" to the people you're trying to kill, and fighting a war "sensitively".
God, but I hope we fight this war with sensitivity. That's not inconsistent with wanting to be as insensitive to our enemies as possible.
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 17, 2004 07:21 PM
Ex-Navy fighter pilot Sen. Tom Harkin? According to FOX News tonight, the Senator said in the past he was a fighter pilot in Vietnam, but he wasn't and had to change his story. He flew planes to the Philippines. So who is a liar and who gave Harkin the right to call the Vice President a coward? I served for six years in the military and many of my friends didn’t. So what! At least my friends and the Vice President didn’t lie about their lack of service as Harkin lied about his lack of Vietnam service.
Posted by: Al Reasin at August 17, 2004 08:01 PM
John Cole has the scoop on Harkin's fighter pilot embellishments. Maybe Tom can regale JFK with his fighter pilot exploits while JFK can BS Tom about his forays into Cambodia. Dueling fiction!
Posted by: Bird Dog at August 17, 2004 09:29 PM
I'm pretty sure that MoveOn.org had its sense of irony removed when it went for the head-up-the-ass implantation.
Man, I just which I had a patent on that "big lie" scam....
Posted by: John at August 17, 2004 09:39 PM
Cheney didn't attack what Kerry said. Lacking context and meaning as was the case, Cheney attacked Kerry. Failing to grasp that, someone will certainly write a blog post of high-falutin' crap damning Harkin for the same thing Cheney did. Now, if Cheney had given reasons why making enemies of friends is a good strategy, you might have a point.
Posted by: Wm D at August 17, 2004 10:31 PM
Apparently you and I hear things differently. Cheney did indeed attack Kerry's premise that you can fight a more "sensitive war". Harkin attacked nothing but Cheney.
Now being a high-falutin writer for this blog that's my conclusion. If you don't like it, start your own high-falutin' blog.
Posted by: McQ at August 17, 2004 11:24 PM
I'm not too high-falutin' to recognize that Wm D is "assuming facts not in evidence." Just which friends did we make enemies of? The French? It is to laugh. The Germans? I'm not so sure the Germans are even particularly an adversary, let alone an enemy. Russia?? China?? North Korea? Iran? Assorted Euro-weenie ankle-biters? What about all those allies that evidently don't count? Sooner or later someone is going to have to check out Kerry's actual intelligence level. I'm not convinced it's all that high.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 18, 2004 12:18 AM
Personally, I like to assess the "allies" Kerry was speaking of:
The French? I'd hardly call them an ally. "Ally" implies some sort of helpful relationship between two parties. We've bailed out France's ass quite a few times, but when was the last time they did something for the USA? Lets see, I think they might have helped us out waaaay back in the day just because they didn't like England. Something about being against us in 1812 (am I correct?), and trying to help the Confederates in the Civil War. Oh, some frenchie did give us the Statue of Liberty, does a gift constitute an ally???
Germany? Heh, sure, if by "ally" you mean "enemy" the last time we shared a battlefield. If by "ally" or "friend" you mean someone you occasionaly drop incendiary bombs on...
Russia? Man, what was that long war we were in where not a single shot was fired? Oh yeah, the Cold War, and Russia was our enemy. And they sent nukes over to Cuba to point at us. Tsk tsk, those allies...always pulling nuclear pranks on us, what a hoot!
So these are the "allies" John Kerry was worried about offending. Pardon me, but I think theres a certain finger I'd like to hyper-extend to dumbasses like Kerry who really worry about hurting these countries' feelings.
Posted by: Chris at August 18, 2004 03:49 PM
Oh? You didn't hear Cheney mutter below his breath, "Check out his hair. The guy looks French." Check the transcript, it's all right there to see for anyone who is in on the joke. Of course, you have to fight a sensitive war. Not against the terrorists. Certainly among the occupied. Cheney has said so himself. Certainly among the countries where terrorists reside. Bush has said so himself. Friends, nominal friends, potential friends: We kinda need people to want to be helpful in providing reliable intelligence and making good-faith efforts to inderdict, etc. instead of just paying lip service. I know we're doing some of that, but I think we can do better. More sensitively, you know. Cheney hasn't contradicted what Kerry said or what he and Bush have said because he was attacking Kerry with the rhetoric of a schoolchild. Those people weren't laughing because they knew what Kerry had said; they were laughing because calling Germans Huns or Vietnamese Gooks or Jews Christ-killers or John Kerry French is easier. And what was it that Cheney said to back all this up? Oh yeah, killers of 3000 people. Maybe we'll just forget about them while we go off to another country where they are not, keep the dream alive and encourage more to join the fight because, you know, we're tough like that.
Posted by: Wm D at August 18, 2004 05:42 PM