Dick “Go F— Yourself” Cheney must really be getting desperate.
The Republican attack on John F. Kerry over terrorism and Iraq escalated Thursday, led by Vice President Cheney, who mocked the Democratic nominee for saying he would wage a more sensitive war on terrorism and accused him of seeing the world as if the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, never took place.
[…]
“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 in Dayton. “President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare — nor did President Roosevelt, nor Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur. A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.”
It was an unusually cheap shot, even for someone as callous as Cheney. It also didn’t make any sense.
First, Cheney wrenched Kerry’s “sensitive war” comment from context. Here’s what Kerry actually 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 and lives up to American values in history.”
Kerry wasn’t talking about treating Osama bin Laden with more sensitivity; he was talking about keeping faith with our allies.
As Paul Waldman noted yesterday, two can play at this game.
Perhaps Kerry can try a little right-back-atcha. Not only did Dick Cheney talk about what would “impress” terrorists, here’s what Lynne Cheney said when asked about Kerry’s remark: “With all due respect to the senator, it just sounded so foolish. I can’t imagine that al Qaeda will be impressed by sensitivity.”
So Dick and Lynne Cheney want to impress al Qaeda! Listen, maybe in the Cheney household you sit around worrying about whether Osama bin Laden is impressed with you, but meanwhile there are real threats out there! How can you fight terrorism if you’re so worried about what the terrorists think? We don’t have time for your petty insecurities!
This would be ridiculous, of course, but that’s the point. Cheney takes one word from context and decides to base an entire day of attacks on it, falsely accusing Kerry of supporting some kind of weak-kneed approach to terrorists.
Cheney’s gang can’t win in a fair fight, so he has to be creative in trying to deceive voters. I’m not sure whether I feel anger or pity.
But the truly amusing part of Cheney’s dishonest smear is its hypocrisy. The Center for American Progress opened a can of whoop-ass on Cheney today, highlighting several instances in which many high-ranking Bush administration officials — including the president — referenced the need to be “sensitive” in military affairs. Here’s a sampling:
Bush:
On 3/4/01, President Bush stressed the need to be “sensitive” in conducting military affairs, stating, “because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence.” And just last week, President Bush said, “In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is — we need to be very sensitive on that.”
Cheney:
On 4/13/04, Cheney said the Bush administration was focused on conducting sensitive military operations. He stated, “We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We’re not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships.”
[…]
In conducting the first war in Iraq, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney repeatedly stressed the need for America to fight a “sensitive” war. On 9/11/90, Cheney told Congress that he “was very concerned about…the clash of cultures” brought on by U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and that the U.S. must “try to be sensitive.”
[…]
On 2/7/90, Cheney told Congress that the Pentagon must be “sensitive” in developing weapons. He said that he understood the need for the Pentagon to explore civilian uses of weapons-related technology, saying, “I think we need to be very sensitive to that as a department.”
Rumsfeld:
In the lead up to the Iraq war and afterwards, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised the Pentagon would be “sensitive.” On 2/5/03, he said “we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it’s conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that’s an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided.” On 7/9/03, he reassured the public that his department was being “sensitive” to troop needs during the war. He said U.S. commanders are “sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And [they] are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives.”
Ashcroft:
Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly stressed the need for the Bush administration to be “sensitive” in fighting the War on Terror. On 4/28/03, just a month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ashcroft said, “The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries.” On 3/20/02, he said the Justice Department was making sure to be “sensitive” in hunting down terrorists. He said, “The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed.”
Mr. Cheney, I’m sure John Kerry will be gracious enough to accept your apology. Now all you have to do is the honorable thing…