 |
Cheney goes too far Not Tricky, DickBy Rick Horowitz
See Dick run. Run, Dick, run. See Dick speak. Speak, Dick, speak. See Dick smear. Enough, Dick. More than enough.
The vice president's people are busy telling us that the vice president didn't say what he so clearly said, didn't mean what he so clearly meant. The White House is claiming the very same thing -- somehow, we've all misunderstood Dick Cheney. Do you buy it? You might buy it if the vice president had made his comments in Portuguese, or Mandarin, or some other tongue that was foreign to him, or to us. He didn't. He made his comments in English, a language he's spoken before. But don't take my word for it -- you can decide for yourself. This is what Dick Cheney said on Tuesday in Des Moines:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
Any questions? Any ambiguities? What Dick Cheney is saying is that unless we make the "right choice" -- unless, in other words, we vote for George Bush and Dick Cheney -- "the danger is that we'll get hit again." What Dick Cheney is saying that voting for John Kerry increases our chance of being attacked by terrorists. Could it be any clearer? Could it be any dirtier? Somewhere, the ghost of Richard Nixon is stirring. Except that even Richard Nixon wouldn't have been quite so direct, quite so accountable. There would have been intermediaries. Cutouts. Henchmen. After all, it's not as if the Bush campaign and the Bush administration haven't been slinging the same kind of slime all year long. But until now, they've been more careful about it. They did it by hint, by innuendo. And they left the nastiest parts to the hired help -- the John Ashcrofts, the Tom Ridges of the world. Remember when Ashcroft declared that terrorists were hoping to disrupt our electoral process the way they'd done in Spain? That they were hoping for "similar consequences" -- which is to say, hoping to defeat someone who supported the war in Iraq and replace him with someone more to their liking? In other words -- or so Ashcroft wanted us to believe -- al Qaeda didn't want Bush, but they were somehow rooting for Kerry. Even though it was Bush who had ignored that rising tide of warnings in the summer of 2001. Even though it was Bush who let himself be distracted from the war in Afghanistan, where the real enemy was hiding, to settle old scores in Iraq. Even though it was Bush who became al Qaeda's most effective Middle East recruiter. But the terrorists preferred John Kerry -- or so John Ashcroft wanted us to believe. It was shameful. Shameful, but subtle. Cheney forgot the subtle. Unless we vote for Bush and Cheney, Dick Cheney said as plain as day, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." So if John Kerry were to become president next January 20th and America were to be attacked again on January 30th, the voters would have only John Kerry -- and themselves -- to blame, right? It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the years of missed signals, missed opportunities, misleading statements and misguided policies that preceded him, would it? Of course not. Bad things are never the Bush administration's fault. There's always somebody else to blame. (See Dick duck.) Are you scared? You should be. Of Dick Cheney. Posted 9/9/04. Missing
Rick's latest can be scary, too. Have you bookmarked him? (Good move!)
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
