Fuck Off

This is Wendy Thomas' latest offering:

In February 2001, Vice President Cheney said of the Bush administration: "We do not mind debating our opponents. . . . But we also take seriously the responsibility to be honest and to be civil."
--Yes, that is what Cheney said. I believe he meant it but when Dems, not fringe elements but US Senators, take Michael Moore's lines and lies and raise them as if they were fact, they are the ones acting uncivil.
Why would the No. 2 man in the free world let fly arguably the worst four-letter word?
How did a leader of the party committed to a return to family values and moralityand keeping Super Bowl half-time shows nipple-free come to such a foul end?
Whatever did Leahy do to prompt such bile?
He criticized Cheney.
--That's right, he just criticized him. Who can't take a litle criticism every once in a while, right?
Leahy had wondered aloud about any improprieties behind the plum no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq won by Halliburton, the company Cheney used to head.
--I wonder if Ms. Thomas knows how many companies in the WORLD do the same job as Halliburton. I think it's about 5.
A fair, if pointed, question provoked a despicable, if heartfelt, reaction.
In his defense, Cheney told Fox News, "I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better after I did."
Worse, Cheney said his rebuke was "appropriate."
Are you kidding me?
No, he's not.
Under no circumstances is it appropriate to cuss out a senator on the Senate floor. Not even if Leahy, who many concede can be a pain in the you-know-what, had said Cheney's mother is ugly and dresses him funny.
Was Leahy baiting Cheney? Probably. Should Cheney have allowed his behavior to be dictated by the behavior of others? Absolutely not.
Cheney's refusal to apologize for his potty mouth is just business as usual for an arrogant administration, unable to support its position in any but the most simple-minded, base ways.
Criticism of the Bush administration is met either with stiff-lipped silence, the reluctant release of massively censored classified documents or obfuscation. Worse are terse non-answers to issues as important as whether there ever was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda sufficient to warrant a war that's killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and, at last count, more than 850 U.S. soldiers.
-- Please tell us, Ms. Thomas, what a "sufficient" link is? Is it WMD going off in Memphis? Would that have been good enough.Please don't go there with civilian body counbts. How many would have died in Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms over the last year had American not done what needed to be done. Thomas must have been a big fan of the sanctions that crippled the Iraqi people and enriched Saddam.
Before Cheney's supporters send me nasty E-mails calling me a liberal (which, by the way, I do not consider an insult), please note that I did not say that former vice-president Al Gore, and more famously, inventor of the Internet, made no mistakes.
--What about Gore calling GOP supporteres "digital brownshirts?" What is more offensive, Cheney saying fuck or the former Vice President of the US calling W supporters Nazis? I report, you decide.
And foul language is nothing new for elected officials. Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all had a proclivity for profanity.
Even the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, used the f-word, albeit in an interview in Rolling Stone, not on the Senate floor, and not in a sexual manner, but to say that President Bush messed up royally in his handling of the war in Iraq.
But none of these men is in the White House. Cheney is, which makes him fair game for criticism, which is an expression of free speech, which is still allowed in America, right?
--Another liberal canard: "Free speech is under attack." No, it's not. You can say whatever you like, but I have the right not to like it and Fisk it, just as I have done here.
Besides, if you don't like it, well, bleep you.
--Nice
There. I feel better.
--I do too, Wendy.