Cheney-"voting for kerry will ensure another terrorist

[JohnnyMarzetti]

This came out of Cheney's mouth in Des Moines, Iowa...

I wonder what he'll blame it on if there's another attack before the election? On voters just THINKING about voting for Kerry?

What a piece of .


another classic example of "foot in mouth disease"

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6450422

The Curse of Cheney

The veep's career has been marred by one disaster after another

By T.D. ALLMAN


Should George W. Bush win this election, it will give him the distinction of being the first occupant of the White House to have survived naming Cheney to a post in his administration. The Cheney jinx first manifested itself at the presidential level back in 1969, when Richard Nixon appointed him to his first job in the executive branch. It surfaced again in 1975, when Gerald Ford made Cheney his chief of staff and then -- with Cheney's help -- lost the 1976 election. George H.W. Bush, having named Cheney secretary of defense, was defeated for re-election in 1992. The ever-canny Ronald Reagan was the only Republican president since Eisenhower who managed to serve two full terms. He is also the only one not to have appointed Cheney to office.
This pattern of misplaced confidence in Cheney, followed by disastrous results, runs throughout his life -- from his days as a dropout at Yale to the geopolitical chaos he has helped create in Baghdad. Once you get to know his history, the cycle becomes clear: First, Cheney impresses someone rich or powerful, who causes unearned wealth and power to be conferred on him. Then, when things go wrong, he blames others and moves on to a new situation even more advantageous to himself.

And you guys want 4 more years of this guy's BS!?

[Spurminator]

Another example of a sensationalist le misrepresenting what was actually said.

If you read the article, the point he is making is that Kerry will not be as assertive in fighting terrorists before they strike. He said that this approach is more dangerous for America, and that it is better to mroot the terrorists out before they can effectively plan a strike.

Is it still a scare tactic? To some degree. But it's far different from "ensuring" that a terrorist attack "will happen" if Kerry is elected. If his words are truly as revolting as you claim them to be, then why don't you print what he actually said instead of exaggerating them?

By the way, Rolling Stone is .
*

[Yonivore]

, I'll say it.

I think the terrorists are trying their damnedest to strike before the election in hopes that we'll blame Bush and elect Kerry. But, regardless of the reason, if Kerry wins, the terrorists stand a better chance of striking after next January 21 than they've had over the past 3 years.

10 out of 10 Terrorists prefer John F. Kerry.

[Hook Dem]

Ain't it the truth!

[Joe Chalupa]

That's BS. Terrorists will strike no matter who the president is. So, is Cheney saying that Dubya has some sort of "power" that the terrorists are scared of?

I don't think so.

[Yonivore]

Joe Chalupa:

"That's BS. Terrorists will strike no matter who the president is."

Well, it's not President Bush that's promising to fight a more "sensitive" war on terrorism.

It's not President Bush that wants to hand over our national security apparatus to the United Nations.

It's not President Bush that can't make up his mind over whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

It's not President Bush that voted for an $87 billion dollar package, to outfit our troops, before he voted against it.

It's not President Bush who's been the most dovish and liberal Senator, with respect to defense and the military, over the past 20 years.

It's not President Bush who can't point to one single accomplishment -- in national security or any other area of any import, over 20 years in public office.

Joe Chalupa:

"So, is Cheney saying that Dubya has some sort of 'power' that the terrorists are scared of?"

Yeah, it's called resolve. Three years since Osama bin Laden unleashed the dogs of war and no subsequent attacks? That's no accident.

Joe Chalupa:

"I don't think so."

Of course you don't, Joe. But, I think you're in a shrinking minority.

10 out of 10 Terrorists prefer John F. Kerry!

[Hook Dem]

Joe....just go ahead and vote for Bush(because you know it's the right thing to do) and don't tell anyone. That way, you won't be hated by the other liberals on this board.

[CommanderMcBragg]

In my experience I've learned that terrorists will strike at any time and any place. Let us remember that just because a terrorist attack hasn't happened doesn't mean it is because of this president's war in Iraq.
Who is to say that Osama Bin Laden simply didn't have plans to attack again so soon? It took years for the plans for 9/11 to come to action.
This is not a "I'm better than you" argument!!

Are you guys really so hateful towards the other party that you would actually believe that!!??

If anything this administration has called the terrorists out with his "bring 'em on" at ude. I'm all for a stronger America, but also a wiser one too.

[Yonivore]

"In my experience I've learned that terrorists will strike at any time and any place."

I won't argue with that logic. However, in light of that, would you rather have a President in office who ins utes policies that make it more difficult or that make it easier for terrorists to strike with impugnity?

"Let us remember that just because a terrorist attack hasn't happened doesn't mean it is because of this president's war in Iraq."

Let us also remember that, when the Twin Towers fell, Osama bin Laden said it was just the beginning.

"Who is to say that Osama Bin Laden simply didn't have plans to attack again so soon? It took years for the plans for 9/11 to come to action."

Actually, he indicated at the time, that we were in for a bad year.

But, that aside, what better argument for hunting them down, wherever they may be, and eliminating them. I'm sorry if Osama bin Laden can't seem to put together a war plan that doesn't take years to play out. But, in my mind, that's to our advantage and doesn't lessen the urgency and importance of the war on terrorism.

(Caveat: I happen to believe Osama bin Laden is dead and greasing the space between two boulders in a Tora Bora mountainside and unable to mount his feet, much less another attack.)

"This is not a 'I'm better than you' argument!!"

You're right, it's a "who's got their eye on the right ball," argument.

"Are you guys really so hateful towards the other party that you would actually believe that!!??"

This is no time to play nice. The policies and positions of the liberal left are capable of destroying this country if they were to gain the White House or Congress at this particular point in history. I believe that with all my heart. **** playing nice.

"If anything this administration has called the terrorists out with his 'bring 'em on' at ude."

And, they came! What a stroke of genius...that one call had them streaming into Iraq to be slaughtered. Better to fight them over there than to have my 6 year old looking down the barrell of a AK-47 at his local elementary school.

"I'm all for a stronger America, but also a wiser one too."

I hear ya! Voting for Kerry ain't too wise.

[Tommy Duncan]

I see nothing wrong with those comments. If it's acceptable to claim that "Bush lied" and that "Bush knew" then it's certainly acceptable to claim that an opponent will not be effective when it comes to defending this nation.

All of you little whining es had no problem when the Demos and the left threw everything and the kitchen sink at the current administration.

[Joe Chalupa]

I can also ensure another terrorist attack will happen.
To me, it is not a matter of if, but when.

[IcemanCometh]

People voted for Bush and 9/11 happened.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

commander McMoron,

No one ever said less terrorism had happened/we hadn't been attacked because Bush went into Iraq.

They have said that our actions since 9/11, from Iraq to Afghanistan to new security measures at home to special forces operating in places and doing things you'll never hear about on the news, have.

[Bandit2981]

your stretch is quite pathetic...just admit it, we all know already, if kerry says it, you blast him, if bush says it, you go into spin mode...case closed
:next3

[Yonivore]

Wow! To have such a "nuanced" candidate running for President, you're not much on the actual nuances of the english language, are you?

Of course, you could have responded before I had a chance to put the context and usage examples up there so, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you hadn't read the rest of my response before accusing me of blind partisanship.

Clearly, in his quote, Kerry is talking about sensitivity to others. And, just as clearly, President bush is talking about the sensitivity with which to balance two ideals, assessing intelligence vs. exacting justice.

Where's the stretch?

[CommanderMcBragg]

commander McMoron,

No one ever said less terrorism had happened/we hadn't been attacked because Bush went into Iraq.

They have said that our actions since 9/11, from Iraq to Afghanistan to new security measures at home to special forces operating in places and doing things you'll never hear about on the news, have.


AHF

Aggie Hoopsterdoofus,

Are you really that ignorant? Please tell me you are not basing your support on what comes out of Cheney's pot hole.
You know damn well what Cheney is alluding to!!

[Yonivore]

McMoron vs. Hoopsterdoofus.

Which is funnier? You be the judge.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," - Cheney.

How does Cheney know we'll get hit again and in a big way? Is there something Cheney should be telling us? Is he threatening democracy? What the is wrong with him?

[Yonivore]

No, he just knows what al Qaeda is trying to do and what John F. Kerry has stated he will do.

Putting 2 and 2 together...If John F. Kerry becomes President, they will succeed.

[Spurminator]

"The danger is" does not mean "It is inevitable that".

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Well, they succeeded under Bush's watch...so what does that tell you?

[Tommy Duncan]

It tells me that someone wasted their time in the White House from Jan. 1993-Jan. 2001.

[Yonivore]

^^I agree with that^^

Just what were the priorities for this country on September 10, 2001?

Oh yeah...the economic recovery from Clinton's .com, WorldCom, GlobalCrossing, Enron, ignorances...

We also now know, because of the extensive 9/11 post-mortem, that the Bush administration was getting up to speed on security threats as fast as possible. But, really, 8 months is hardly time for an administration to filter through all the transitionary information passed down from one administration to another. , I bet they hadn't even got all the porn off the White House computers yet.

[Bandit2981]

It tells me that someone wasted their time in the White House from Jan. 1993-Jan. 2001.

who was wasting time when handed a memo led "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S?"

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh yeah, eight ing weeks. Someone had eight years and ample reason to strike against terrorism. What other threats were facing the US at that time? We saw what happened when you treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

And I'm sure if Bush had decided to launch a strike against Afghanistan back then that everyone in this nation would have been happy about it.

By the summer of 2001 it was too late.