So its been big news at all the large *left slanted* media outlets that Dick Cheney criticized John Kerry over the use of the term "sensitive" in a speech. Here is exactly what Cheney said (and what was picked up all over the media):
"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive."
Oh he goes on, not done yet:
"A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more. The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity."
Its off topic here but worth a little side journey to note the *blatant and oft repeated bullshit injection assertion that Iraq was involved with 9/11*. I guess many Republicans accept this? The Vice President just said "war" and "evil men who killed 3000 Americans" in a clear assertion that the two are related and there is no outrage or dissent?
Back on topic Cheney chose to Attack Kerry and call out the "sensitive" based on this Kerry statement:
I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side."
(http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0805.html)
And as the daily show said (I paraphrase here as I cant hit their site right now) "out of those 5 adjectives which one do you think Cheney picked up on!".
Then the Daily Show went on to point out that the President Bush made this statement (at the very same UNITY Journalists' convention):
Now in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040806-1.html)
So BOTH the President and Kerry used the term sensitive but as is obvious to those who read and speak English (as the Presidents quote shows, again, excludes him) Kerry was referring to our relationships with other countries and Bush was reffering to "bringing people to justice" (which could mean any number of things but is obviously more directly related to the actual "war on terror" and its tactics).
Yet the left leaning mainstream media didnt pick this up, they did not step up and call out the absurdity of Cheneys pitiful and contradicted attack, unless of course you call the Daily Show the mainstream media.
John Stewart summed up this ridiculous Cheney attack and misrepresentation of what Kerry said by speaking TO the President "I believe the veep just called you a pussy"!
(Side note, make sure you are aware of the type of person that Mrs. Cheney is. She was asked about the matter and pointed out that Kerrys remarks showed his "extreme left" stance and that they were an "expression of an 'extreme left' idea that Americans bear responsibility for the terrorism now threatening them". This is the mindset of the people in charge of our nation? The Cheney group, including his wife, completely falsified and misrepresented a statement made by John Kerry in order to denigrate his character when at the same time their candidate has said the same thing WITH A MORE DIRECT correlation to their criticism? The entire thing is just monumentally stupid, but Mrs Cheney had to take the negative and bullshit game to an even un-Cheney like level, bravo to her.)
Comments
RE: Cheney "sensitive" cracks are called out by the Daily Show
come on man, i havent had a good argument all week? isnt some neo nazi conservative gonna tell this liberal pansy ass wuss that i am all wrong?
RE: Cheney "sensitive" cracks are called out by the Daily Show
You admit to being a "pansy ass wuss" so you must not be "all wrong".
RE: Cheney "sensitive" cracks are called out by the Daily Show
You might want to reconsider getting your political opinions from Comedy Central.
1) Cheney made no connection between Iraq and 9/11 in that sentence. There's the "war on terror", the "war in Afghanistan", the "war in Iraq", and "too many wars". But you go on looking for that straw man, by all means.
2) Being sensitive to a specific thing - in this case, maintaining the balance between collecting intelligence and bringing people to justice - is not the same thing as being "sensitive" in the "reaching out" global touchy feely sense that Kerry used it.
See, the reason the mainstream media didn't "pick this up" is because there is nothing to "pick up". It's funny because of the "he called you a pussy" punch line, but there's nothing there.
RE: Cheney "sensitive" cracks are called out by the Daily Show
In response to Phaid . . . bullshit. The Bush sensitive remark was MORE touchy feely than Kerrys, and its significant that the BUSH TEAM BROUGHT IT UP. No one would have given a shit if the mud slinging hadnt been STARTED by Cheney.
AND Its not WRONG or WEAK to engage in conversation with our allies and use every one of the adjectives Kerry did in real foreign policy and diplomacy.
Also, you will surely continue with your cognitive dissonance with complete disregard to reality, but the Cheney line about war and dead Americans WAS an attempt to correlate Iraq and 9/11. Saying it wasnt it just total bullshit. Cheney directly speaks about the Iraq war and says 3000 dead Americans and "nucular" and so on. I mean lets just cut the crap and look at EXACTLY what he said "A sensitive war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans". Really, hmmmm, I wasnt sure the Iraq war (which is the "war" he is speaking about in his response to Kerry whom was speaking about that war, since things apparently need to be explained here?) was responsible for dealing with the "evil men who killed 3000 Americans". Oh, maybe he was talking about some other 3000 Americans and not 9/11? In that case my complete apologies, else, bullshit and it was a correlation attempt (and thus another pathetic ridiculous lie).
You are a clear example of people being able to justify their positions in clear DISREGARD of facts. I mean here we are talking about a SENTENCE, ONE SENTENCE. And you acutally argue that he made no connection?
Amazing, you should have been on Clintons legal team.