Cheney insinuating Kerry's a 'girlie-man'?

Cheney insinuating Kerry's
a 'girlie-man'?


"Ugh! Me real man--me not sensitive!"

Faux-macho chickenhawk Dick Cheney thinks it's hilarious that John Kerry used the word "sensitive" in connection with the war on terror.

Dick's longing to be cool like Governor Arnold, perhaps?

I'd bet Dick would have just loved to have scored some major chortles from the brainless he-men in America by calling Kerry a 'girlie-man'.

The difference is that it actually worked for the star-powered Guvnah Arnold. (Well, let's just say it worked out for Guvnah Ahnold. Let's face it, the comment was incredibly goofy -note I didn't say insensitive-).

Knowing that our troops are over in Najaf fighting Iraq's ever-blossoming disaster of a civil war and that we Americans were lied to while he kept a terribly straight face, Cheney just looked like a desperate, unpopular, and incredibly insensitive vice-president by mocking "not-so-curious" George's opponent.

It doesn't take a cave man or an animal to intelligently lead a war.
It takes a great military. We have that.

It takes a leader who's not afraid to place humble reliance and trust in his subordinate military commanders when they advise him that they need a certain number of troops. Listening is an important form of sensitivity.

It takes intuitive perception to know when it's the right war and the right time. Perceiving is a form of sensitivity.

It takes moral and intellectual sensitivity when it comes to a Commander in chief securing and maintaining the trust of his own citizens as well as that of leaders from other nations. Respect and compassion are forms of sensitivity.

Who knew?

Certainly no one in the Bush administration.

Washington Post Mea Culpa on Iraq reporting

Washington Post Mea Culpa on Iraq reporting

They deliberately hid what they knew.

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper."

Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

[LINK]

For whatever it's worth, I alerted you to Mr. Pincus' reporting here at Iddybud.

See my own thoughts about the sad state of the media before the war.

See my thoughts about Bush virtually abandoning the UN before the war.

No nuance = No imagination

No Nuance = No imagination

Suzanne Fields just can't imagine how a man might be anti-war hero and war hero at the same time.

She, like many others in her ideological set, can't imagine how a man could kill an opponent for his country (in Vietnam) and save an opponent (Sen. Hecht with the Heimlich maneuver) for his country.

She can't imagine a man who could win three purple hearts and then throw some ribbons over a fence to conscientiously show his nation that something was dreadfully wrong.

The 9/11 Commission report made a lack of American imagination the main theme-point of their conclusions.

Suzanne Fields lacks imagination. We must forgive her. She's a lot like our president, who's never killed a man for his country...who's never saved a life for his country..who's never won a medal for wartime service..who's never seen what war does to real people.

I've never killed or saved anyone myself..(unless saving a choking cat counts).
I've never seen war while actually amidst the exploding bombs, bleeding bodies, and firing guns. I've never had to be that afraid or that brave.

Yet, I can imagine.....

Calling Senator Kerry tasteless and vulgar for talking about his wartime service, as Ms. Fields suggests is, on its face, vulgar in itself and void in its insistence.

Redeem the Vote (or go to Hell)

Redeem the Vote (or go to Hell)


Ooo! How red America looks! No pesky blue divisions.

Jeff Sharlet has an interesting piece at The Revealer about a new group created to register young voters at evangelical pop concerts.

Redeem the Vote is a conservative counterpart to Rock the Vote. Their "non-partisan" partners include outfits such as Pat Robertson's CBN, Focus on the Family, and, FOX News -- "with Sean Hannity tagged for special mention". Mr. Sharlet's article focuses on Washington Times reporter Julia Duin's decidedly disappointing reporting, wich falls for the same master narrative that guides many journalists when it comes to the "vote" as an abstract concept.

Excerpt:

...groups such as Redeem the Vote -- or Rock the Vote -- escape mainstream press scrutiny.

One must move to the partisan edges for perspective. Jonah Goldberg, for instance, of The National Review, slams Rock the Vote as a "trojan horse" for the Democratic Party with refreshing vigor: "I despise youth politics," he begins, and then he gets nasty. Outing Redeem, meanwhile, is left to liberal Alternet.

But National Review and Alternet are political forums. For the most part they ignore the role of religion -- civic or divine. Rock the Vote is suffused with the former; in that sense alone it can be said to be the more conservative of the two groups, since it's squarely within political tradition.

Redeem is something else entirely.....

As GOP Convention nears, remember....

As GOP Convention nears, remember....

This is what president Bush really thought of the 9/11 Commission.

Swift Boat Sue

Swift Boat Sue

The gravitas of truth

In the New Republic, Kenneth Baer has made a strong suggestion that Kerry should sue his swift-boat defamers. Projections and predictions are being made that Kerry will win this election (and I believe he will) and the right-wing mouth machine will carry on with business-as-usual, Scaife-ing and FOX-ing the new president at every opportunity (and the opportunities are a-plenty). A suit may change the course of the right-wing's ability to untruthfully-yet-effectively bang the Dem-bashing drum 24/7 once President Kerry's been sworn in.

Joe Gandelman asks an interesting question at The Moderate Voice:
Would a lawsuit further aggravate the alreadly stultifying polarization in this country..creating another problem as it solved one?

I can't say I know the answer. I do know that the right-wing mouth machine is popular with many Americans. It's misinformation as sure as you're born. It's a reality that won't go away, lawsuit or no lawsuit. I think all this misinformation deserves its proper come-uppance. If Senator Kerry knows he's been done a horrific injustice and libel/slander can clearly be proven, I think it may deal a well-deserved and necessary truth-blow to the Scaifers-- it could outfox the FOXers--it could rile the O'Reillyites--it could hand it to the Hannitylovers--it could scar the Scarboroughsuckers--it could humiliate the Humehummers--it could melt the TonySnowballs--and it could flush the Rushites. Would that be healthy for politics? In the long run, I think it might. Seeing how sick the state of politics is right now, I can't imagine use of our justice system to pull out some facts under oath would hurt. It pulls in and spits out the gravitas of truth, with which talk-radio and stilted cable news networks cannot compete.

Kerry's Stand on Iraq: The Distinction

Kerry's Stand on Iraq: The Distinction

Juan Cole provides a thoughtful fact-based post about the distinction between Kerry's vote of support for the Iraq war resolution and Bush's final approach to the war as our Commander-in-chief.

It is all-important to understand that Senator Kerry would have handled things differently from Bush.

One particular statement from Professor Cole bears repeating:

"Bush and his are counting on the American public being so simple-minded that they just stop thinking after the phrase "we were right to remove Saddam" and that they think "nuance" is a dirty word."

Professor Cole offers his own wise suggestion as to how he would have handled Bush's challenge to Kerry.

Professor Cole asks these questions of GW Bush, which are reflections of challenges from the Kerry camp:

- How long does Mr. Bush plan on keeping 138,000 US troops in Iraq?
- What is this project going to cost the American taxpayer?
- What does Mr. Bush plan to do if the situation remains so unstable that elections are not feasible in January?
- What are Mr. Bush's real plans for Iraq, such that his "mission" there cannot be completed within one year?
- What exactly is the mission?

While you're at Informed Comment, be sure to read Professor Cole's updates on the Iraq war. I have found them to be the most accurate throughout the course of this unfortunate war. I thank Professor Cole for his valuable insight. The initial Iraq mission's bitter aftermath has revealed a startling truth which is rearing its ugly head in Najaf as I write these words. (As Charles has said at The Fulcrum blog, "Nothing good can come of this") I would hope Americans are not so simple minded that they accept the absence of nuance as elemental to intelligent policy.

Cheney likes it primitive and impulsive

Cheney likes it primitive and impulsive

About the November election and the topic of 'going to war, Dick Cheney said this yesterday:

"We don't want to turn that responsibility over to somebody who doesn't have deeply held convictions about right and wrong. And I must say, I look at the record of our opponents. There is a lot of hesitation and uncertainty."

Here we go again. The old "Bush doesn't flinch" talking point.

In a way, they're right. Not only didn't Bush "flinch" on the morning of 9/11 when it was whispered into his unflinching ear that America was under attack, he demonstrated how very decisive he was at clinging tightly to "My Pet Goat" and freezing.

Not only should Bush have stepped back and controlled his impulsive action based upon his primitive black and white thought processes, Bush should not have lied to the American people about his motives for war in Iraq. It was a haughty and foolish assumption to have made if Bush (or Cheney) thought Americans would be settled with the notion of being misled. That mistake that will cost him the presidency, no matter how bottom-of-the-barrel negative they go on John Kerry.