Cheney Called a Chickenhawk

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by waggie945, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. Yes he did, and what a pathetic spectacle it was. First, who is Frank lautenberg? He was the guy the Dem's in that bastion of good government, New Jersey, rushed on to the ballot AFTER the statutory deadline had passed when it became obvious that the legal candidate, the ethically challenged Bob Toricelli, would be defeated.

    Now he has the temerity to launch a vicious and unfair personal attack on the Vice President? This from the party that all during the Clinton years assured us that what happened during Vietnam should be left in the past, that it didn't matter if you served or not, or as Clinton's case, used devious and fraudulent means to dodge the draft. Times change, I guess.

    It's so unusual for the Dem's to have a candidate with any military record, much less a few medals, that they are shocked, shocked, that anyone dare challenge him. If you question how a guy riding around in a boat for four months got more medals than Bob Dole, why you are worse than spit. If you dare question Kerry's 20 year voting record to weaken defense, security, intelligence and vote against every major or minor weapons systems our troops used, why you are a chickenhawk and should shut the f*ck up. In fact, that seems to be the standard Kerry response to any question.

    I think all this is pretty clear to the voters. They have trouble understanding why a guy who brags about being in Nam every 2 minutes would throw his, ok someone else's , medals away to impress Jane Fonda. They have trouble understanding why a self-proclaimed war ehro would go before congress and denounce other troops still serving under fire as war criminals and baby killers. They have trouble understanding why he would put POW's in North Vietnamese hellholes in greater danger and contribute to their ordeal.

    I htink the voters understand that however admirable one's service, your voting record is still fair game for scrutiny. We are voting for a political leader afterall, not someone to pilot a boat. This whole notion that only those who served in Nam have the right to criticize Kerry's voting record is pretty absurd, and the Dem's sure don't apply it anywhere else. They are the first to cry foul if anyone dares to suggest that vicious personal criticism of the President is not helping our troops but is encouraging the enemy. Of course, many Democrat voters consider the enemy in Iraq to be freedom fighters. Maybe Kerry can round up some more medals to toss over the fence.
     
  2. 1) Lautenberg, Kerry, Liberals, and Jane Fonda are bad

    2) therefore, Cheney is *not* a chickenhawk?
     
  3. I assume the definition of a chickenhawk is someone who is willing to see others to take risks that he would not personally take. There fore, a "chickenhawk" cannot fairly comment on military matters, or he is a hypocrite.

    This term is applied to Cheney because he ...gasp..received a deferment. So did millions of others. Applying this standard would mean most of the US Congress couldn't vote on any military or defense measure, Bill Clinton could not have served as Commander in Chief, most of his Cabinet would similarly be disqualified and the entire editorial board of the NY Times cannot write on any military or defense matter, unless it is to urge pacifism.

    I would think anyone of voting age could see through this sleazy attempt to deligitimize fair criticism of Kerry's voting record. Why can't Kerry just discuss his record instead of trying frantically to demonize anyone who questions it? And why is he still lying about throwing those medals away? He would impress a lot of people if he just apologized for insulting his fellow veterans. But the guy who doesn't fall down on the ski slopes can't admit even the tiniest mistake.
     
  4. I'm not a big John Kerry fan, but the fact that the Bush Administration were the one's that initially brought up Kerry's military service seems to have escaped you! None of this would have been an issue had Bush and his spinmeister's like Karl Rove not brought it up. But they did, and as a result you get quotes like the following:

    "As far as we know, Senator Kerry got three Purple Hearts for risking his life in Vietnam and President Bush got a dental examination in Alabama," Pelosi said.

    Speaking on the House floor Wednesday, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., characterized Bush's military service as "missing without action."

    "We know that Senator John Kerry fought with courage and valor on behalf of his country," McDermott said. "We know that George W. Bush flew under the radar, because that's the only explanation for how a pilot suspended from flying parachuted into a Republican political campaign in Alabama."
     
  5. the term is applied because cheney and crew - none of which have a first-hand idea of what they are forcing upon others - utilized hysterical propaganda, media leverage, mistruths, and deception to aggressively promote for war. a war they stood nothing to lose from, a war paid for by others, to inflict harm on others, and to be fought by others. now that he wields the power of the state he orders children to die for wealth, despite that he himself ran from the same order.

    although a rational person might find that disturbing, as you correctly say, it applies to most politicians - and it would improper for Kerry to cite cheney's conduct to defend his own record on voting for missle-defense systems for "the troops", or appropriations for flak jackets, or whatever the political-ad nonsense du jour.

    however, if cheney is so arrogant as to attack Kerry on the military service issue, then he's opened the door for his own service record to be critiqued.
     
  6. True.
     
  7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Cheney nor anyone else in the administration has ever commented on Kerry's service record or his disgraceful conduct in tossing someone's medals away. When Kerry started campaigning in the primaries it became a runing joke that he mentioned his service in Vietnam in answering every question. Rush used to jokingly ask, "Say, did Kerry serve in /vietnam?" The questions about how a guy cruising around in a boat managed to get a fistful of medals in four months and questions about what kind of guy puts in for purple hearts for scratches arose from veterans groups who were outraged.

    As for the questions about the medal throwing incident, I believe they came from Peter Jennings, hardly a Bush flackey. Of course, Kerry lied through his teeth and has continued to invent more outrageous stories by the day. As much as I distrust the media, I give them credit on thisone, because I never thought they would allow that old interview tape to be shown that proved he was lying.

    Kerry has tried to use his four months in Nam as a club to beat anyone who asks perfectly legitimate questions about his voting record in the Senate. Thus, he whined that people who didn't serve had "something against" those who did. Well, no one in the Bush administration called Vietnam vets babykillers and war criminals. That would be Mr. Kerry.

    It is particularly galling for the Democrats to be whining about criticism of Kerry when they have floated the most insulting, unsubstantiated and scurrilous claims about the President. Look, I don't doubt that Bush got a leg up when he applied for the Air National Guard. Do you think Al Gore went to Nam as a photographer just because that was really what the Army needed or because they wanted to keep him out of harm;'s way because his dad was a powerful Senator? Or that Chelsea Clinton got into Stanford on the strength of her grades and SAT?

    It's not fair, but that's life. The facts are that Bush risked his neck every time he got in that plane. They crashed frequently. I bet the fatality rate was higher for those pilots than boat jockeys like Kerry.

    The Dem's have continued to make contemptible claims that Bush knew about 9/11, that he was asleep at the switch and caused it, that he invaded Iraq to steal their oil, etc etc. I think the American people hear these wild claims and wonder what kind of people inhabit the Democrat party. They have no ideas, no plans except higher taxes and no credibility on security issues, yet they answer every question with personal attacks on Bush and Cheney. And then whine about negative ads.