Cheney's Criticism on the Trail

[rraley]

Full Story

Here's what John Kerry said:

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.

When I read this statement, this is what I see: John Kerry is articulating his belief in the value of multilateralism and international alliances. Am I wrong? Correct me if I am wrong.

Here's how Vice President Cheney distorts the statement:

The men who beheaded Daniel Pearl and Paul Johnson will not be impressed by our sensitivity.

And his wife Lynne joins in...

I can't imagine that al Qaeda will be impressed by sensitivity.

John Kerry was not talking about being sensitive with terrorists. He did not say that we had to treat them with so much respect that we let them do whatever they want. Vice President Cheney took the senator's words out of context and is trying to falsely tell people that John Kerry will "be nice" to terrorists. Shouldn't this be something that everyone points to as an example of political distortion and lack of forthrightness?

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, I scoffed when I first heard the statement. John Kerry is an uber-liberal and there's no reason for me to believe he would be tough on terrorists.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Well, I scoffed when I first heard the statement. John Kerry is an uber-liberal and there's no reason for me to believe he would be tough on terrorists.

You are entitled to that opinion (though, it is one that I definitely disagree with). Still, do you believe that the vice president's comments distorted the real record? Cheney can make the case that you made, but this way is just low and absolutely incorrect.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by rraley
Still, do you believe that the vice president's comments distorted the real record?

Nope. I thought the same thing Cheney said when I heard Kerry's remarks.

I find it interesting that you are voting for a guy who distorts, lies and engages in character assasination, yet Cheney using Kerry's own words against him disturbs you.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I find it interesting that you are voting for a guy who distorts, lies and engages in character assasination, yet Cheney using Kerry's own words against him disturbs you.

Kerry distorts, lies, and engages in character assassination uh? Can you provide some real examples and not some rhetorical statement that seems hollow? While I don't think that John Kerry is the perfect candidate, he is the best one that is running in this election.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by rraley
Can you provide some real examples and not some rhetorical statement that seems hollow?

Sure. He called the Republicans a bunch of crooks and liars. He called Vietnam vets a bunch of baby killers. There are legitimate questions about how he got his medals. He claims to be "a man of the people", which is just ridiculous. He lies about how he voted on various issues, even though it's a matter of public record and easily checked. He lied about owning an SUV.

Want more?

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by rraley
When I read this statement, this is what I see: John Kerry is articulating his belief in the value of multilateralism and international alliances. Am I wrong? Correct me if I am wrong.

I think you are partially wrong. He is saying that he wants multilateralism and international alliances, but the whole "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror" statement is how he proposes to do that. Personally, I think it is an extremely hollow statement. Exactly how is he going to be "more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive"? At the very least, how is the Bush admin not effective, thoughtful, strategic, proactive, or sensitive?

Effective? Two governments that supported terrorism have been eliminated. Others are scared and going against the terrorists (i.e. Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia). Many terrorist leaders have been captured.

Thoughtful? Not sure how you measure that or show any basis for that.

Strategic? Afghanistan was taken by something like 100 Spec Ops guys. Iraq was the fastest and best executed war ever. How is that not strategic?

Proactive? I thought the argument was that Bush was too proactive.

Sensitive? They've been more sensitive than I would be. That mosque that Al Sadr is in would have been flattened by now if it were me.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
I find it interesting that you are voting for a guy who distorts, lies and engages in character assasination, yet Cheney using Kerry's own words against him disturbs you.

Hey Vrai, he ain't voting for anyone until he's of age.

 

[rraley]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Sure. He called the Republicans a bunch of crooks and liars.

That statement was made when Kerry did not know that he had a live microphone on him. It was a private statement. If we were to record all of President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's statements about Democrats I am sure that we would hear some very harsh words as well (probably some wonderful four letter words as well ).

He called Vietnam vets a bunch of baby killers

I have never heard Kerry's statements refer to American troops as "baby killers." His word, I do believe was "atrocities" and at that, he did not fault American troops. Rather, he faulted the military officers in Saigon desks who ordered troops to execute practices that were inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions (such as participating in "free-fire" zones where troops shoot anything that moves). What John Kerry did was come home from Vietnam and call a spade a spade: he told the American people that the war was unwinnable and that American troops were being mistreated.

There are legitimate questions about how he got his medals.

Well if you consider politically calculated questions that are based on second-hand knowledge "legitimate" questions, then yes you are correct here. This book "Unfit for Command" does not offer any testimony from sailors on John Kerry's boat and is written by a Republican operative since 1971 (the Nixon White House picked John O'Neil to counter Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War and he was given a prominent role at the 1972 GOP convention). My question is, why didn't these sailors come forward in 1968 to say that Kerry didn't deserve the medals? Why did Kerry's commanding officer sign a piece of paper for his Bronze Star when he thought that he didn't deserve it? How do these 60 men who saw many things in Vietnam remember clearly what happened these days on the swift boat?

John McCain says that the book and the ads are "dishonorable." Jim Rassman, who John Kerry saved on the rivers of Vietnam, believes that John Kerry deserves his medals. I don't see anything here but a Republican attempt to smear John Kerry's honorable service to this nation in Vietnam.

He claims to be "a man of the people", which is just ridiculous

Do you believe that President Bush is a "man of the people?" Just because Kerry has a great deal of wealth does not mean that he cannot represent what the middle class needs to succeed.

He lies about how he voted on various issues, even though it's a matter of public record and easily checked

Wrong again. The thing is that Senator Kerry understands, unlike some Republicans, that these "various issues" involve much more than the opening line of a bill. He and his staff read the entire content of bills and came to conclusions on legislation that is often flawed, but also contains a great deal of effective ideas.

He lied about owning an SUV.

I'll give that one to ya.