WTF? How can Cheney just get away with something this ridiculous?

http://dailyhowler.com/dh081704.shtml

Explain to me, please, why this isn’t a major, major hypocritical fuckup that needs some attention. Now, we all know that Cheney’s assault on Kerry for saying that, among other things, he would be more sensitive (to the concerns of our allies) was complete and utter slimeball. And we know it was hypocritical bullshit given that virtually every other Bush official including Cheney has described the need to be sensistive about various things in the War on Terror: including the very things Kerry was talking about.

But this latest instance came in the VERY SAME INTERVIEW in which he just got done bashing Kerry for the use of the word!!

i.e., the U.S. has to be careful with Sadr because it’s a culturally sensitive situation. Oh, but of course, Cheney’s “sensitivity” isn’t the “Kerry’s a wussy fag” code-word kind of “sensitivity.” No no, it’s a realpolitik, morally serious “sensitivity.”

How can such a giant douchebag get away with this when Kerry is repeatedly slammed because he was in Cambodia in easrly January instead of Christmas?

Cheney is just a two faced double talking pile of shit like his boss. One is a deserter from the National Guard, the other got 5 deferments, but boy they will sure fight to the last drop of someone else’s blood.

Well! I bet that cost the Bush ticket your vote!

Dosen’t the word ‘sensitive’ have several meanings?

Sure it has several meanings, but the meaning of “paying attention to the feelings of others” is at issue in both cases, isn’t it?

Yeah, well this kind of sniping happens in a political campaign. It’s just like Kerry criticizing the Bush administration for proposing troop reductions in Europe and Korea that he had supported in the past.

Adults look past the partisan bullshit, and vote issues.

So, what will you be doing then? Voting the daily talking points perhaps?

How about “Responsive to external conditions or stimulation”?

Right. I didn’t realize CNN was a reliable Bush mouthpiece. :rolleyes:

I don’t really know what Kerry’s position in the past was. I am open to an unbiased cite. But a more important point might be that apparently Bush has (pardon me) “flip flopped” on the issue himself or he would have begun this process 43 months ago.

Wise men do change their minds when circumstances change. Republicans do too. :wink:

What makes you think he’s “getting away with this”? He’s been called on it on all the cable news networks I’ve seen lately. What would constitute, for you, “not getting away with it”? Do you want the government to ban him from saying it in public?

It’s a freakin’ campaign, man. Are you going to open a Pit thread everytime somesone says something outrageous?

You haven’t been paying attention, then. But I’ll wager you actually believe that whole “liberal media” nonsense, too.

Well, when the conditions that Cheney wishes to be “sensitive” to are the attitudes of the Shiites towards the mosque of Imam Ali. The conditions that Kerry wishes to be “sensitive” to are the attitudes of the international community. Looks identical to me…

Please excuse the rogue “when” in the last post.

Kerry on ABC News’ “This Week”, August 1st, 2004:


And, as a matter of fact, the Bush Administration has for several years now been working out agreements with countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Mongolia for the maintenance of airbases in these countries. They would be available to us at a moment’s notice should the need arise. All of this points toward a more mobile force, less tied to permanent bases in Europe and Asia.

So rest assured, Zoe, this work did start many months ago. I hope this fact helps you feel a bit more confident and secure.

They look to me to a bit different. Synonym for Cheney’s ‘sensitive’: critical, volatile. Synonyms for Kerry’s ‘sensitive’: cognizant, perceptive, responsive. But neither is wrong in any way, IMO. It was wrong for Kerry to be criticized for using the word. It is wrong for Cheney to be criticized for using the word in a different context.

I don’t understand what the fuss is, really. I’m hoping Cheney has a different address come January, but this seems a little silly to me.

Cheney sez: “This is a sensitive situation.”

Kerry sez: “We need to fight a sensitive war.”

I’ll leave it to others - probably the ones that care - to yammer over the difference or identicality 'tween these two statements.

Mr. Cheney’s statement clearly means he wants to go into that mosque and give ole Sadr a great big bear hug. Go on Dick, show em ya care.

This isn’t the fault of all of the threads;more of the administrations really. Every time that I read something like this I sigh, roll my eyes, and wonder how these monkeys kept the last election close enough to win it.

Cheney’s use wouldn’t have caught any attention except for the fact that he hooked on to Kerry’s use of the word “sensitive” as a way to label him as a wimp who wanted to coddle terrorists. It’s part of their campaign theme - Kerry is a wimpy elitist who doesn’t have the stones for the war on terror, whereas Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz are big manly he-men regular guys who will give those terrorists and those Frenchies the beat down they deserve.

Just because Kerry was for redeployments doesn’t mean he was for the sorts of redeployments Bush has done. This is the sort of distinction that “adults” can draw, but as I predicted this at the start of this campaign: smart people now have it in their interest to start pretending to be stupid just so that they can pretend that they don’t understand the difference between things like giving the President the authority to go to war and supporting the timing and the way the President went to war.

And then they claim to be voting “on the issues” even when those are the most pliable of their bag of tricks. Again and again, we’ve seen smear after smear that you’ve nodded along sagely with, and when the facts come out that prove the smears to be mostly bullshit, ah, Mr. Moto is too much of an adult to worry about it any further.