http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHENEY?SITE=VTBUR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I think John Edwards got this one right.  Protecting the country from the likes of Bin Laden is not a partisan issue.

"Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that.""

Lon Cheney may fear a terrorist attack if Kerry is elected, but he & his partner-in-crime Dumbya both have an extremely ugly one on their resume, something they both somehow conveniently forget.  Their bullshit scare tactics are incomprehensible.

Look at it this way: those of us who've argued that Bush/Cheney don't learn from history may well be wrong. They've certainly studied the transcripts of the Nuremberg trial of Hermann Goering.

Actually, Cheney is very, very intelligent, but Edwards is going to slice and dice him. It's going to be bloodier than one of the early televised UFC matches, before they had rules.

One wonders where the Republicans are headed with these rhetorical fluorishes.

First they have Zell Miller as the keynote speaker at their convention, who said: "Our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." Hmm! Yes, it's called an "election", Zell They happen every four years in the U.S., if we're lucky.

Then, the follow-up punch from Cheney, indicating that we're guaranteed a terrorist strike if we elect Kerry/Edwards.

From my perspective, I think they should have saved this kind of ammo for the final days of the campaign. Where do they go from here? Claim that Kerry/Edwards, and those who vote for them, are traitors? Inquiring minds want to know.


-- Modified on 9/8/2004 6:00:37 AM

Edwards will end up making himself look bad. While Cheney stays cool and collected. Cheney took Senator Leiberman apart in 2000, he'll do the same with Edwards.

RLTW

The fact is we will get hit again by a terrorist attack.  It is just a matter of time.

Yeah I remeember all the pundits telling us that Bush won all his debates.


I have high expectations for Bush in the debates since he won them all before.

don't you?

AP readers are not told that the AP snipped Cheney's quote in the middle of his sentence, in a way that supports the AP's interpretation of Cheney's remarks as an argument that a Kerry presidency will lead to another terrorist attack. When you read Cheney's quote in its full context, it is highly questionable whether the AP's interpretation is correct.

Here is the full quote, in context:

"We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.
We have to understand it is a war. It's different than anything we've ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don't agree with our view of the world. They've got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don't believe women ought to have any rights. They've got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter -- as they demonstrated on 9/11 -- anybody who stands in their way. So we've got to get it right. We've got to succeed here. We've got to prevail. And that's what is at stake in this election."

While Cheney's language could have been more precise, his point was clearly that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter -- not that a Kerry presidency would cause another terrorist attack.

RLTW



-- Modified on 9/8/2004 11:48:08 AM

Knowing the proven tactics and ethics of Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove, it's very clear that making "the right choice" on Nov. 2 he means that another attack would be the result if Kerry is elected.  Same type of fear mongering they've used consistently since 9/11.

Even though seeing Lon Cheney getting his ass handed to him in the VP debate will be quite enjoyable, the presidential debate is the one to watch.  It's going to be awesome to see Kerry nail Shrub's ass to the wall on the rotten economy, the budget deficit, Iraq, the million plus lost jobs, et. al. that are all Dumbya's doings.  I can't wait to see Shrub get that "deer in the headlights" look in his eyes, the same one he got on 9/11, when he will finally be forced to answer to his 3+ years of "Moving America forward (into an oncoming train), and he'll just be standing there soiling himself for all of the U.S. to see.  It will also be a prime environment for some more "Bushisms".  Vegas should be taking odds on the over/under number of idiotic statements Dumbya will make.  My guess the opening betting line will start at over/under 8.

And I'm taking the OVER!!!

KCSHYGUY

-- Modified on 9/8/2004 5:24:49 PM

There are just to many people out there who we do not know about and there is opportunity for them to strike.  This is why I think the posts about who a terrorist would want elected do not make a lot of sense.  Terrorists do not care, they will try to strike us when they feel they have the chance.  A strike can come, this month, next month or ten years from now, the only constant is that we must be determined to weather it then go out and eliminate the bastards that were responsible.

The fact of the matter is that the Bush administration is reacting to the events of 9/11/2001, nothing that they have done so far can be considered going on the offensive.  Iraq, pure and simply is a diversion, a war launched at the wrong time under the worst possible circumstances.
    If any one believes that a president would have not gone to war with the taliban after 9/11/2001, then that person does not have a clue.  There was no other choice, the taliban were protecting Bin Laden, who we proved were responsible for 9/11.  This may burst the bubble that you apparently live in, but even Ralph Nader would not have had any choice but to attack the taliban if he were president on 9/11/2001, the absolute magnitude of what happened dictated that.
    Mr.Cheney's remarks are deceptive and to be direct, very silly.  City agencies such as police and fire that will be instrumental in either preventing an attack or minimizing the damage from one are underfunded, this was driven home when I was out at a recreational event this weekend and overheard a story on a television nearby.  The story was by a news organization that you would probaly approve of normally.  The story was about an anti-terrorism unit of the LAPD that had only received something like 60% of the money that it was promised by Homeland Security.  The missing 40% insured that there were some types of terrorist attacks that the unit could not deal with effectively.

And as a friend of mine once said, when told by a girl to take her (supposedly correct) number or leave it ...

I'LL TAKE IT