- Leahy had it coming:
"It was partly that, it was partly also ... it had to do with -- he is the kind of individual who will make those kinds of charges and then come act as though he's your best friend, and I expressed in no uncertain terms my views of his conduct and walked away," Cheney said.
"Part of the problem here is that instead of having a substantive debate over important substantive policy issues, he had challenged my integrity, and I didn't like that. But most of all I didn't like the fact that after he'd done so, then he wanted to act like everything was peaches and cream."
- I'm glad Cheney felt better after giving Leahy a piece of his mind.
- This is probably the funniest graphic I've ever seen on CNN:
From the accounts I saw, Leahy was accusing Cheney of killing hundreds of Americans so his former company could benefit. Cheney was defending his own honor against a monstrous lie. Perhaps a duel would have been better?
That a longtime U.S. senator would repeat something like this is yet more evidence that the stagnant backwaters of the Left now constitute the mainstream Democratic Party.
Perhaps a duel would have been better?
Who do you think would have won?
without a doubt, Alexander Hamilton's ghost...
Why is it acceptable for [presumably] Republicans whose Vice President swears openly in public?
Whether or not the 'other guy started it' is moot. When your son comes home suspended for a fight because the 'other guy started' it, do you tell him 'good job, johnny'. Or do you ask him why he didn't turn the other cheek and walk away from the confrontation?
Sure Mr Cheney human, but he is also the Vice President and should be above the junior high school antics. Show some class, Mr. VP!
What I wanna know is, how come this seems to be getting lots more press than Kerry's use of the same word some months back did?
"When your son comes home suspended for a fight because the 'other guy started' it, do you tell him 'good job, johnny'."
It would depend on what the other guy did to start it. If the other guy had it coming, absolutely. We must break the cycle of pacifism, otherwise we won't survive.
I thought Kerry's f-bomb got a reasonable amount of attention, and it even lingers in such expressions as 'John Effing Kerry'.
So I don't think the Veep's use of the word is being particularly stigmatized.
"We must break the cycle of pacifism, otherwise we won't survive."
I'm not sure what you mean by either the 'cycle of pacifism' or your assertion that 'we won't survive'.
Would you elaborate?
"What I wanna know is, how come this seems to be getting lots more press than Kerry's use of the same word some months back did?"
Do you really think people care anything about Kerry? His bumper stickers might as well be "TheGuyWho'sNotBush2004". It could turn out that Kerry fathered illegitimite Vietnamese children and the press wouldn't care.
I mean exactly the same thing people mean by "cycle of violence." Only I mean the opposite.
In this place and time, "we won't survive" in the sense that we'll all either lose our heads or become dhimmis (as in other times, I would have said we'll all become Reds, or be killed in the cleansing transition to The Perfect Society At The End of History).
Victor,
I think you are exaggerating the threat of Islam / Muslims to take over the world.
AFAIK, fundamentalists like Al Queda do not share the beliefs of the majority of [common] Muslims.
Your generalization is like claiming that the National Alliance represents Christians.
Finally, [since we are on Catholic Light] check Matthew 5:43-48.
Jeff, Cheney wasn't "swearing openly in public." He was in a public place, but engaging in a private conversation. I don't think swearing is okay, but I find it understandable that Cheney would get angry at a man who was accusing him of underwriting mass killings. Not excusable, but understandable.
It is part of ordinary Muslim orthodoxy, not something al Qaeda dreamed up, that Muslims have a natural right to rule over non-Muslims and to make war against them until they submit to dhimmitude.
I can think of close to 20 violent religious/sectarian wars/civil wars around the world in the past decade. I can think of only one that doesn't involve Muslims (Northern Ireland).
Muslims will never leave peacefully with their "infidel" neighbors and Leahy had it coming......in fact so does the entire DNC......and their chairperson, Michael Moron.
I really can't believe that a bunch of Catholics are justifying extremely uncharitable remarks because "Leahy had it coming." Do you know how utterly Republican and how not Catholic you sound? If you don't, that's sad.
RC - I haven't heard Kerry referred to that way. You could be right.