(Blogged by Brad from the road…)
Despite the postive poll numbers that I spoke about in the previous item, the Kerry Camp needs to get their act together when it comes to responding to the scumballs in Team BushCo.
Last week’s “Sensitivity” issue is a very good example (I touched on it previously here as well).
The Kerry response to the Bush/Cheney smarminess, as pointed out by Atrios, needs to be much sharper and much better. They are up against professional smear merchants, so unfortunately (for the country) they’ve got to be just as agile in spinning the spin back towards the truth.
The fact that this is the Vice-President of the United States purposely misleading the country about what Kerry actually said is particularly disgusting, but the Kerry folks better get used to it, and figure out how to counter such skuzzy tactics.
For the record, here’s the general exchange (as summarized by AMERICAblog):
“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.”
What Cheney says Kerry said:
“As our opponents see it, the problem isn’t the thugs and murderers that we face, but our attitude. Well, the American people know better. … Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed.”
So the VEEP doesn’t mind twisting Kerry’s words to an entirely new meaning and politicizing the War on Tara itself if it gives them a better chance of retaining power. He’s willing to make a laugh of it, and the Corporate Media is happy to echo the bullshit.
Never mind in the meanwhile, all the previous — almost identical — references to “sensitivity” from all sorts of Adminstration Hawks.
But here is Cheney himself last Thursday on Hugh Hewitt’s show (again courtesy of Atrios):
war on terror. What do you think John Kerry meant when he said ‘sensitive,’ Mr.
Vice President?
VP: Well, I’m not sure what he meant (laughing). Ah, it strikes me the two words
don’t really go together, sensitive and war. If you look at our history, I don’t
think any of the wars we’ve won, were won by us being quote sensitive. I think
of Abraham Lincoln and General Grant, they didn’t wage sensitive war. Neither
did Roosevelt, neither did Eisenhower or MacArthur in World War II. A sensitive
war will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans, and who seek
chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more….
…[later]…
HH: Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that
means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?
VP: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area,
and we are very much aware of its sensitivity. On the other hand, a lot of
people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the
shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S.
commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the
extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the
shrine itself.
What a tool. Anything to win.
(Comments are now closed.)