Archive for Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Worst days

February 22, 2006


To the editor:

Dick Cheney says the accidental shooting of someone he describes as an acquaintance made for one of the worst days of his life, and that the image of the man falling to the ground is something he will never be able to get out of his mind.

At the expense of his unintended victim, perhaps the shooting was a good thing. Maybe the vice president can process this sensation and just begin to imagine a fraction of what is felt by U.S. service men and women as they see their friends and comrades blown to bits in front of their eyes in a country we needn't have invaded. Maybe he can start to imagine the tiniest portion of what countless Iraqi men, women, and children have suffered through during the arbitrary and continuous death and destruction of the last three years.

Unfortunately for tens of thousands of dead or injured, the tortured and the permanently scarred and traumatized in Iraq and elsewhere, there was no swift response by a Secret Service detail and a medical team in a quiet field at sunset. I hope Cheney knows that one of the "worst days" of his life was truly a walk in the park compared to most.

Christy Kennedy,



Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

Christy - while no fan of the VP myself (le Roi Dick), I can only say that calling this letter a "cheap shot" (no pun intended) would grant it a dignity that it does not possess. For shame! U.S. servicemen and women do not exist to be pawns in your lugubrious sensationalism.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 12 years, 3 months ago

No, James, they are the pawns of others much less concerned for their well-being.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago


I agree. U.S. service men and women are not pawns, but perhaps you'd like to remind those positioned at the right side of the political spectrum. Those who have used this war to justify outrageous military spending ($8.8 billion of which remains unaccounted for) are the FIRST to invoke the holy name of U.S. service men and women to suppress ANY criticism of this war...even if that criticism comes from someone who has honorably served this country in past wars.

I propose that U.S. service men and women are very aware of the contention this war has created among members of this country. I also propose that they, if they understand their role, would defend Ms. Kennedy's right to say whatever she wishes about the VP, our role in Iraq, and so on.

Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

"...Ms. Kennedy's right to say whatever she wishes...

Agreed. Just as others may criticize the poverty of her response.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago

Certainly, James. You're so profound.

Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

No need for profundity given snarky insinuations about the military. Your service appears to have left you with a very curious juxtaposition with current servicemembers. You SAY "they are not pawns" but then speak of them as if they were.

"I propose that U.S. service men and women are very aware of the contention this war has created among members of this country."

U.S. service men and women are not THEMSELVES "members of this country"?

"I also propose that they, if they understand their role..."

Do you believe these implied mental (or is it moral?) midgets can possibly GRASP what "their role" is? Or did they need you to educate them about "their role"?

"right to say"

How was this an issue on this page until you brought it up by implying that someone was preventing the author from her say? Why did YOU feel the need to express such a cliche, creating a need to clarify that speech is a two-way street?

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago


Your examples do not demonstrate that I speak of service members as pawns. Instead, your examples demonstrate your inability (or unwillingness) to address what I'm saying in an adult manner, without making assumptions and without prejudice.

Of course U.S. service men and women are members of this country. Do you really think I was attempting to state otherwise? You're nitpicking. My point is that they're very aware of the division this war has created. Hopefully, they anticipate that any war will incite debate. They do not need protection from this debate.

If they understand their role, that is, of defenders of the Constitution, then they'll understand that Ms. Kennedy has the right to her opinion. I'm not implying that I or anyone else must educate them on this. You're the one tossing out insults...moral and mental midgets.

Do I need to remind you of your post?

"For shame! U.S. servicemen and women do not exist to be pawns in your lugubrious sensationalism..."

You accused Ms. Kennedy of using the service men and women as pawns. She's doing no such thing. She's simply hoping this shooting incident will enlighten Mr. Cheney to the harsh realities our military are being subjected to. How is that using them as pawns?

Unlike those I mentioned in a previous post who are more than happy to invoke the servicemember to bring to a screeching halt any criticism, Ms. Kennedy isn't trying to squash anyone's criticism, and she's certainly not using the servicmember to do so.

Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

mefirst - the author most certainly DID use servicemembers as pawns in her inane letter. To suggest - no! to STATE otherwise - is absurd as anyone can simply read her letter for themselves - and frankly, is a bald-faced lie. Do not try to foist your (and the author's) own snarky comments about our military personnel upon me.

If you wish to attack the VP and his profound misjudgements then more power to you - take a number. But do not use the armed forces of the USA as 'cannon fodder' to make your argument. Give them some respect - they are not children, nor slaves, nor idiots, as your comments and those of the author implied. I'm uncertain what you believe soldiers do in war but one of those things is die. It is hardly an argument against any particular war to point to that fact. To do so in the manner the author did (do you know what lugubrious sensationalism means?) is reprehensible. Your sneering, derisive comment about "the HOLY NAME of U.S. service men and women" was perhaps worse.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago


you're such a hypocrite. You're perfectly fine with Bush using service members and this war to squash criticism, but no one else dare bring it up.

You're using service members RIGHT NOW to make your argument. You're "defense" of the service member makes you feel good about the arguments you posit. You feel extra patriotic, like you're doing your part for this country in this war. You're fooling yourself, and allowing yourself to be fooled.

YOu don't need to explain to me what a service member is and isn't. I used to be one. I know what being in the military entails. Your protection of the service member serves your interests only. IN a previous post you made assumptions about feelings my service left me with. What effect did your service have upon YOU?

The armed forces are the perpetual cannon fodder of this administration and people like yourself.

I don't pretend to have the military member's best interest at heart, then turn around and patronize them by "defending" them. They're the "defenders." IF you so wish to defend something, step away from your computer, and catch the first flight to Bahgdad!

Curtiss 12 years, 3 months ago

Guess what? Turns out Deadeye Dick really is a criminal, as if that's really news to any of us.

Written reports from the Secret Service say he was "clearly inebriated" while he was hunting. Even in Texas, that's illegal.

So he got drunk, and having never had proper gun training when he was dodging the draft, swung around and shot a guy in the face.

If you've seen the videotaped test of the shotgun, with and without choke, you'd also know that from the pellet pattern he had to be 15 to 30 feet away from the victim, not the 30 yards he claimed.

So he was drunk, shot a guy, fixed more drinks, and avoided the police till the next day when no one could prove he was drunk. Then lied about pretty much every facet of the story.

Did anyone ever think the details would be otherwise?

Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

mefirst - Please don't invent an identity for me. You don't have a clue (already obvious). The ONLY argument I have made on this page in the inappropriateness of the AUTHOR'S (and thereafter, your) treatment of service personnel; there is no other agenda that I've expressed (other than an anti-Cheney comment - le Roi Dick). What do I think of Issue X, Y, or Z? Any reader would have to guess seeing that I've not expressed any here.

What I have expressed is an extraordinary objection with the method by which the author (poorly) tried to express her opinion on Issue X, Y, and Z, and you then following. If you think you're going to take the focus off YOUR indefensible COMMENTS, you're mistaken. The contempt that YOU obviously feel towards "fools" (a/k/a, those who disagree with you or don't cheer you on - myself, other commenters, and apparently the whole of our servicemembers) radiates from your continuing non-germane comments.

So go ahead and criticize Issue X, Y, and Z. But if you keep doing so using soldiers as your pawns with your "snarky" comments about them, then I'll be all over you.

yourworstnightmare 12 years, 3 months ago

Whether or not Cheney was drunk will never be known (except for the possible secret service record). What is known is that Cheney was hunting without the proper Texas permits, I believe a $7 quail stamp. He paid a fine.

Cheney broke the law. Moreover, he flouted the spirit of hunting permits and broke the trust between hunter and conservator. Makes one wonder how many other times Cheney has hunted or fished without the proper permits. He is an irresponsible, scofflaw hunter.

Maybe he thought himself above the law or he didn't have time to get his permits. These are not excuses that other hunters and fisherman have at their disposal. Shameful behavior that disgraces hunting.

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago


You're accusing me of contempt for the soldiers. Will this (non) argument ever die? I'll continue to speak my mind, and you can continue to accuse me of not supporting the troops. Hard to say that to a person who used to be...a troop.

You're right don't express any opinions.

You're a freakin' joke. And hopefully, you don't speak in the manner you about haughty and arrogant.

Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

mefirst (a/k/a, MeSoSnarky) -

"You're perfectly fine with Bush using service members and this war to squash criticism."

So....I guess I shouldn't hold my breath for an apology for this LIE? (I've already given up on an apology for our servicemembers.)

Hey, I don't diagnose your psychoses. I just point them out when they appear.

Arrogant? Surely the irony of being called arrogant by "mefirst" is obvious even to the slow kids in the class. Who in the heck spent the day referring to our troops as if they were children, slaves, and idiots. We already saw what you think of the troops with your (oh so smart) satire about {insert rolling eyes} "the HOLY NAME of U.S. service men and women." Just what exactly inspired this dripping disdain for respect for those who serve?

Don't be mad because you got called on your attitude problem evidenced by YOUR haughtiness at 7:58 am. Pot: Call Kettle - now that's a "freakin' joke."

Jamesaust 12 years, 3 months ago

ah, yes. The weasel arises.

"Generally, weasel terms are statements that are misleading because they lack the normal substantiations of their truthfulness, as well as the background information against which these statements are made."

mefirst 12 years, 3 months ago


i'm surprised you didn't join in, being the midget that you are.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.