Speakeasy forum

General discussion

VP to Sen. Leahy: 'F**k You'...

by Bruce Berry / June 24, 2004 10:42 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: VP to Sen. Leahy: 'F**k You'...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: VP to Sen. Leahy: 'F**k You'...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Link to article
by Bruce Berry / June 24, 2004 3:54 PM PDT
Collapse -
Cheney needs to step aside for good of Bush, party
by Bruce Berry / June 24, 2004 4:04 PM PDT

Cheney needs to step aside for good of Bush, party

By James P. Gannon

Gannon is a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal and editor of The Des Moines Register.

An open letter to Vice President Cheney

Dear Mr. Vice President:

I am writing to you as a long-time admirer. Ever since you rose to prominence 30 years ago -- when you became chief of staff to President Gerald Ford and I was a Wall Street Journal reporter covering economic policy in the Ford administration -- you seemed to embody the qualities needed at the right hand of the president. Your competence, calmness amid crisis and absolute devotion to duty were obvious then, as now.

For nearly four years now, you have been a loyal and hard-working partner in the presidency of George W. Bush. Your experience, steadiness and character surely have given the president strength in these difficult times. I believe you have always considered first what is best for the president, and only secondly what is best for **** Cheney.

That question arises now in this election year. Forgive me for suggesting that self-sacrifice may be the greatest service you can render to President Bush in what promises to be a closely contested election. You must ask yourself now if your continued presence by his side will offer strength or weakness to the Republican ticket in November, and what it will mean for GOP prospects in the future.

Nobody knows better than you do that you have become a lightning rod for criticism, and a favorite target for your party's political opponents. Fair or not, it is simply too easy to paint **** Cheney as a tool of the oil industry, a too-eager advocate of war in Iraq and a too-gullible supporter of the now-disgraced Ahmad Chalabi, who fed the Bush administration false intelligence on Iraq. Your former company, Halliburton, is a political albatross around your neck, weighing down not only you but also President Bush.

news link

Collapse -
Re: Fly on the wall. - whitehouse.org - :-)
by Bruce Berry / June 28, 2004 7:20 PM PDT

Bob,

I'm simply shocked at your attempt to ingratiate yourself with some of the more conservative members here by linking to the truth of the exchange between our esteemed vp and a senior United States Senator.

Shame on you Bob.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) They love me anyhow. Didn't you know? :-)
by crowsfoot / June 29, 2004 10:09 AM PDT
Collapse -
Re: VP to Sen. Leahy: 'F**k You'...
by Josh K / June 24, 2004 11:46 PM PDT

When I see it reported by a legitimate news source, I'll believe it. Though I will give Drudge credit for aiming its sleaze at a Republican for a change.

Collapse -
Re: VP to Sen. Leahy: 'F**k You'...
by Dan McC / June 25, 2004 1:20 AM PDT
Collapse -
No doubt about it, Josh,
by Del McMullen / June 26, 2004 2:17 AM PDT

But I think it long overdue for someone to speak
"plain American" to some of those "distinguished",
"esteemed", pompous perfumed princes in a manner that
cannot be mistaken, party preference immaterial.

The Senate was not in session, so the big deal about
something happening "on the floor" only stands to point
up the hypocrisy of the issue. Implying such an exchange
is acceptable "off the floor".

I'll wager the VP felt better after he said it.

Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by Evie / June 26, 2004 2:28 AM PDT
I'll wager the VP felt better after he said it.

He did. He said so in an interview with Neil Cavuto yesterday Happy

As I understand it it was in response to Leahy being disingenuous. Kind of like Bush being nice to Kennedy and all that goodwill he built up over the Education Bill was lost on Kennedy who regularly takes to the Senate floor to slander the President. Apparently Leahy was fresh off a Cheney bashing fest and then wanted to "play nice". Cheney didn't want anything to do with the ceremonial BS.

Evie Happy
Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by David Evans / June 26, 2004 2:36 AM PDT

I congratulate Cheney for saying it and hope he gave him the finger when he said it. He's representing us after all, and that's what we would have done, lol.

As for Leahy, there are few things in this world that stink worse than a two-faced phony.

DE

Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by Evie / June 26, 2004 2:57 AM PDT
there are few things in this world that stink worse than a two-faced phony

Ain't that the truth!

Did you catch Gore's latest? Was really precious juxtaposed with footage of him in the 1992 campaign Happy Somebody get the hook and get that man off the stage! On second thought, why get in the way of someone so obviously bent on self destruction?

Evie Happy
Collapse -
Think circus, Evie...
by J. Vega / June 26, 2004 3:35 AM PDT

Evie, think circus, political circus in this case. We, as well as the press who are covering it, are in the audience.
The name of the game is to attract the attention of the audience and have them focus their attention on the ring, even if it's a clown act.
While the audience is focused on the ring, they don't notice the ringmaster, Kerry in this case. When the ringmaster is on and announcing the acts that he will give you next, the press might demand that he give the details of his upcoming act, or in their later coverage look into and cover past performances. The circus, in the unusual world of political ones, sometimes wants the press to look at the competition, rather than their circus.

Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 29, 2004 1:18 PM PDT

Hi, DE.

>>As for Leahy, there are few things in this world that stink worse than a two-faced phony.<<
Given your support of George W. "the compassionate conservative, uniter not divider, bipartisan" Bush, that's really priceless!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by David Evans / June 29, 2004 4:51 PM PDT
>>As for Leahy, there are few things in this world that stink worse than a two-faced phony.<<
Given your support of George W. "the compassionate conservative, uniter not divider, bipartisan" Bush, that's really priceless!


The priceless point regarding Leahy was presented, but no defense or explanation was offered. Rather, that tired old "dodge and parry" technique was employed, and I will presume from this omission that the point was ignored because you can't find a defense for Leahy. That's ok, neither can anybody else, as it's impossible to defend a two-faced phony.

But considered in the context of your relentless SDS anti-American offerings of aid and comfort to the enemy, manifest by acting as their resident propaganda mouthpiece during at least two times of war, the comment is understandable.

DE
Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 29, 2004 11:15 PM PDT

Hi, DE.

Like any good Catholic, my support of a war does not come from whether my country happens to be involved as the aggressor, but whether the war is justified. I would have objected to the Mexican War in 1850, but all others (except perhaps the Indian Wars) were justified until VietNam. Panama was justified; Granada was not. Desert Storm and Afghanistan were justified; Iraq definitely was not, though now that we're there, it's clearly in both our best interests and those of the Iraqi people that we achieve or objectives there. But that does NOT justify retaining the pre-emptive warmonger who got us involved so his party could win an election -- the best example of "Wag the Dog" since James Polk's "54-40 or fight."

As for SDS, I was a member for perhaps a year, until it became clear to me that their tactics did not always agree with my principles (which at the time were complete pacifism; I've moderated since then to accept the Catholic position of just wars as a necessary evil).

"America right or wrong" may sound great, but it's not a morally defensible position. Moral principles are the basis of my politics -- that's why in 1966 I abandoned my former Republican conservative roots (though unable to vote, I worked actively for Nixon in '60 and Barry in '64) when more careful reading of the Gospels convinced me that laissez faire capitalism and Christianity are mutually inconsistent.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Let's consider the words, Evie...
by J. Vega / June 26, 2004 3:11 AM PDT

Evie, let's consider the words, "it it was in response to".
I finally saw a report which may put it in a different light. According to it, Leahy said that he was against something because Republicans are anti-Catholic.
Seems to me that Leahy was therefore saying that that the Vice President was anti-Catholic. Let's play a mental "what if" time game and pretend that it is 4 years ago. What if Leahy had said you are against Gore (/Lieberman) because Republicans are anti-Semitic and Cheney said the same thing? Puts it in a different light in the "PC" arena.
Now, let's play "what if" in a similar situation with an election in the civilian world. What if a club in say, Nebraska, was holding an election for club president and Bert, a white man who was born in Mississippi was running against a man called Ernie who happened to be black. If after a meeting at the clubhouse a third man Sam, said to Bert, "You're against Ernie because all people from Mississippi are racists". Ask yourself something. Democrats and/or Demo-trolls, just in your mind, nobody but you will ever know your thoughts so you won't have to let others know. The question is: If you were Mississippi-born Burt might you have suddenly responded to this with the same words that Cheney used? If you did, should those words, suddenly said in anger, result in your being "raked across the coals"?
Just a chain of thought that happened to run thru my mind.

Collapse -
So are you going to start calling him ''potty mouth'' too?
by Josh K / June 26, 2004 11:46 AM PDT

Or is that expression exclusively for Kerry?

Collapse -
Nope!
by Evie / June 27, 2004 12:19 AM PDT

As a Kerry supporter you should be fully versed in nuance by now Wink

Kerry used the f word in a print interview (IOW, it could have been edited out) intended for public consumption -- specifically I guess he thinks it would come off as cool and hip to the target audience.

The exchange between Cheney and Leahy was a semi-private personal exchange ... certainly NOT intended for public consumption except that it got reported. It hasn't been reported as such, but it was in response to Leahy attacking Cheney's integrity and then wanting to "play nice". I don't blame Cheney for saying how he felt in that situation. The reporting as if this was official Senate floor debate is also yet another example of a partisan press. The Senate was not in session, they were assembling for the 2004 "class picture".

I can't believe the audacity of liberal pundits that are saying this is an example of how the Bush Administration has failed to bring civility to Washington. Give me a break already. I don't think you can get more civil than how Bush treated Kennedy, and for that he got what? Leahy is another in a long line of Democrat senators that routinely take to the senate floor or sit on committees and personally attack the integrity of Bush Administration officials then want to act as if some air of incivility is due to Bush's Administration. It is just like after months of the Democrat primary "debates" (one could hardly call them such as they were negative attack against Bushfests more than anything else) that when Bush challenged Kerry's waffling position on the war and Senate voting record he was being unjustly negative. Pundits on both sides of the aisle are laughing at this and telling those on some high horse to get real. If you don't think Senators use profanity on occasion in their "side negotiations" not intended for public consumption, you're kidding yourself.

I stated in another post that I don't think profanity is statesmanlike conduct. But there are probably very few people that never use profanity, ever, in their public or private lives. Intentional public utterances are, however, a greater infraction than impromptu private ones. And if you think Cheney saying this to Leahy given Leahy's actions/words, then what do you think of Kerry cursing out a secret service agent for supposedly making him fall on a ski slope?

I don't think Cheney has a reputation of being a potty mouth ... which, I suppose is what makes this "newsworthy". Those in DC and familiar with Kerry are not at all surprised when he uses foul language. Take from that what you may.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re:
by John Robie / June 27, 2004 1:22 AM PDT
In reply to: Nope!

Re: "But there are probably very few people that never use profanity, ever, in their public or private lives."

Yep, never heard my Dad use profanity around us kids, even after we were grown, except when he would occasionally hit his thumb with a hammer.

BTW, mention was made of other presidents using profanity....let's not forget Pres Nixon, and many Generals, especially Patton.

Happy

Collapse -
A ha!
by Evie / June 27, 2004 1:38 AM PDT
In reply to: Re:

There was an exception!

I've probably told this story here before but it is one of my more humorous memories. My Mom can come off as very straight-laced. She is not prone to profanity and growing up it was not tolerated in the home. Shortly after my hubby and I got together we were visiting my folks and sitting outside with Mom discussing I can't even remember what. But in response to something my mom just popped out with "it's f'ed up". Odd as it might sound that profanity garners respect, I must say my to-be hubby did have a new respect for Mom after that!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Interesting
by Josh K / June 27, 2004 11:09 PM PDT
In reply to: Nope!

So whether you think someone is a potty mouth basically depends on two things:

1. Where the foul language was used, and

2. Whether you personally think the use of the foul language was warranted and/or excusable.

Collapse -
Nope again
by Evie / June 28, 2004 9:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting

1. Circumstances are everything. Potty mouth refers to someone who makes it a habit of using the language, even when there is opportunity to retract.

2. See #1. Nothing to do with my personal feelings. Circumstance.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: Nope again
by Josh K / June 29, 2004 11:01 PM PDT
In reply to: Nope again

The circumstance being, of course, that in this case the word was uttered by a Republican. If this exact incident had happened four years ago and the VP involved was Al Gore, you'd be all over him.

Collapse -
Re: Nope again -- Josh, don't you ever learn...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 30, 2004 1:46 PM PDT
In reply to: Re: Nope again

... not to expect consistency from Republicans? After all, it was only a week after Clinton's Inauguration that Newt and Dole held a press conference announcing that he did not have a mandate because he hadn't won a majority of the popular vote. They put this into action by blocking the highest proportion of presidential judiciary nominees since the Andrew Johnson administration. Yet when the Democrats dared block fewer than *10* nominations by a President who lost the popular vote by more than half a million, the same party held an all-night whine-fest on the Senate floor to complain that the nasty Democrats were "thwarting the will of the American people."

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Re: No doubt about it, Josh,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 27, 2004 11:22 PM PDT

Hi, Evie.

It was precipitated by Leahy's continues probing of how halliburton, Cheney's former company (and whose stock he had to be forced to divest, as you'll recall) managed to get no-bid contracts, in a process that it now appears was "coordinated" in the VP's office. Basically, Cheney is upset that anyone dares to question his right to extract more money from gullible taxpayers by the Divine Right of Elected Officials.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Is the report true, Dave...
by J. Vega / June 28, 2004 12:06 AM PDT

Dave, I saw a news show that said that just before those words Leahy said that Republicans are anti-Catholic and that's what lead to it. Was that report wrong? If not, why the attempt to call attention away from it with that halliburton and money smoke screen?

Collapse -
Re: Is the report true, Dave...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 28, 2004 3:45 AM PDT

Hi, J.

There was something about Catholicism in the exchange ("According to Leahy's staff, the Vermont senator answered Cheney's complaint about Halliburton with Democrats' complaints that the White House sanctioned a smear of Catholic Democratic senators over their objections to Bush's judicial nominees"), but Cheney himself said it was mainly about Halliburton:
Cheney Defends Use Of Four-Letter Word; Retort to Leahy 'Long Overdue,' He Says.
(Washington Post login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw= speakeasy)

And I don't buy at all that it was "long overdue;" Leahy (unlike some on both sides of the aisle) conducts himself as a gentleman at all times. I mean, what's next -- Cheney pops a political opponent in the nose and says "he had it coming?" Furthermore, this is entirely out of keeping with Cheney's own words about "civility and respect," both in accepting the nomination and the Vice Presidency: Conduct unbecoming .

Collapse -
Sorry, Dave...
by J. Vega / June 28, 2004 7:59 AM PDT

Sorry, Dave, the report I saw in all probability on MSNBC) said that he said it right after, and response to the charge that Republicans are anti-Catholic.
Cute trick, saying, " Cheney himself said it was mainly about Halliburton", hoping that people would assume that he said it immediately after, and response to something about Halliburton.
As I said in another post in this thread, if during the Gore/Lieberman election someone had said to me in a private conversation that I was against them because all Republicans (implying me as one) are anti-semitic, I very well might have also quickly responded with harsh words, and probably would also have included the horse he rode in on.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) As if **** ain't a pompous, perfumed prince!
by Dan McC / June 27, 2004 11:35 AM PDT
Collapse -
Will the NYT do?
by Edward ODaniel / June 26, 2004 4:47 AM PDT
Cheney Owns Up to Profanity Incident and Says He 'Felt Better Afterwards'
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: June 26, 2004


SIOUX CITY, Iowa, June 25 - Vice President **** Cheney, long portrayed by his aides as unperturbed by partisan attacks, admitted Friday that he "probably" cursed at a senior Democratic senator this week, said he did not regret it and added that he "felt better afterwards."

Then Mr. Cheney quickly reverted to type, flying here for a tightly scripted campaign rally where he never mentioned the incident in a speech on terrorism and the economy to an adoring Republican crowd.


Not even TOO biased for a NYT article.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.