Opinion
 

Cheney reveals hypocrisy

By David C. Salinas

Recently, during a Senate photo shoot, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Vice President Dick Cheney got into a heated argument. Cheney scolded Leahy for criticizing his allowing his former company Halliburton, from which he still receives deferred compensation, to profit off the war in Iraq. Leahy responded by asking why Cheney had called him a "bad Catholic" for being pro-choice. The argument ended with our second-in-command telling the senator to either "f--- off" or "go f--- himself." When questioned about this, Cheney said he had no regrets about swearing and that he "felt better" after doing it.

The problem here is not that Cheney swore, but the hypocrisy that spews out of every orifice of this administration. In December 2003, Democratic presidential frontrunner John Kerry gave an interview for Rolling Stone magazine in which he used the same "four-letter word" our vice president chose. Soon after, Chief of Staff Andy Card demanded an apology from Kerry. 

Has he demanded the same from Cheney? He hasn't, and judging by how hypocritical this administration has been in the past, he won't.

The Bush minions have chosen to refer to Kerry as a "flip-flopper" on the Iraq war. But is this true? Or is it the other way around?

In stump speeches, President Bush has said that Kerry was in favor of the war in Iraq, and now is opposed to it. But here's what Kerry said in October 2002 when he voted for the Iraq resolution: "I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they -- all of them -- will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq." He went on to say, "If the president arbitrarily walks away from this course of action -- without good cause or reason -- the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the president doing so." 

Two days before we started bombing Iraq, Bush pulled his U.N. resolution, so why wouldn't Kerry have a right to complain? Now, after realizing he needs more than a few allies, Bush is the one "waffling" on this issue, coming to the United Nations and NATO for help.

In a 2000 campaign rally in Tennessee, Bush, criticizing Gore, said, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." So what are we doing in Iraq now? What are we doing in Afghanistan? 

We were more justified in invading Afghanistan than Iraq, because we were attacked by terrorists who their government harbored. But it appears Bush has waffled on this issue as well. In 2002, Bush said, "You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." A year later he said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." Would you like some syrup with those waffles, Mr. President?

Bush has reversed his stance on numerous issues, including abortion, gay marriage and his stance on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and not because he's had some profound revelation, but for political gain. So before you go pounding your sandals together like a bunch of mental patients, or brag about how your candidate has "convictions," look at the records, look at the facts, and definitely look at the quotes.

Oh, and try not to swear too much.

Salinas, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at dccampus@mail.uh.edu