Cheney kicks ass
I know that many people seem to dislike our Vice President. Me, I kind of dig on his crusty manner. For example, he recently dissed Kerry's ideas for a more sensitive war on terror:
"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney said.
"Those that threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively, they need to be destroyed."
I give that idea two thumbs up. Especially in light of the fact that Europe's enlightened and sensitive, dare I say... nuanced foriegn policy got them exactly bupkis in their negotiations with nuclear wannabe Iran. Actually, less than bubkis (double plus unbupkis?) given that the Iranians started making demands.
Naturally, the Kerry camp said that the Republicans had sunk to a new low, negative, blah blah blah. And, the best part: Kerry spokesman David Wade contrasted the vice president's lack of military service in the 1960s with Kerry's record as a decorated Vietnam veteran. Three purple hearts! Three! Threeeeee!
STFU.
Cheney went on to say:
"He [Kerry] has even said that by using our strength, we are creating terrorists and placing ourselves in greater danger. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world we are living in works. Terrorist attacks are not caused by use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness."
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
I could converse politely
I could converse politely with anyone who'd try to argue that we should avoid war.
On the other hand, anyone who says we can only fight wars in a "sensitive" fashion isn't nuanced; they're ignorant, effete, and beneath polite conversation. Cheney should have "dropped the deuce" on him.
We should avoid war. That's
We should avoid war. That's what we did throught he seventies, eighties, and nineties with terrorism. But when someone drops a few airliners and kills 3000 people, they've kinda insisted on being at war. At that point being sensitive in return is a bit, shall we say, totally fucking stupid.
Even a broken clock is right
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Amen to Dick Cheney.
Side question, which has been bothering me: when, O when, will the Republican Party disown Henry Kissinger as the architect and enabler of America's slide into choosing expediency over right in the international sphere, and toward utter cynicism and cavalier amorality at home? (Ditto Gordy Liddy and Ollie North?)
Personally, I've never liked
Personally, I've never liked him. Our Vietnam policy was wrong for military reasons under the Democrats, and wrong for grand strategy reasons under the Republicans.
Between Kissinger and McNamara, you have a twofer of complete wrongheadedness as a result of high intelligence, vast learning, and arrogance. Realpolitik has its place, but I'd much prefer Reagan calling it as it was - calling the Soviet Union an evil empire - than Kissinger's accommodationist detente policy.
Only caveat - including
Only caveat - including McNamara in a sentence with Kissinger makes it difficult to give Henry all the scorn he deserves, because I end up heaping more of it on Robert. Fuckwits, both, though for different reasons.
Liddy and North were mere footsoldiers, rather than the principals they might have dreamt they were. Which doesn't make them right, or even any better, of course.
Judging by the responses here
Judging by the responses here, I don't think any one of you is sensitive enough to properly conduct a war.
Where's the love for terrorist-Americans?