CHENEY THREATENS VOTERS WITH TERRORIST REPRISALS

If anyone here is still in doubt about the character of the men who are currently running our country, I give you the following from the L.A. TIMES:

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has warned that electing the Democratic presidential ticket would make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Mr Cheney's comments came on a day when President George Bush increased efforts to paint Senator John Kerry as wobbly on the war in Iraq and the Democratic challenger accused the President of executing a war that has cost the US dearly.
The Vice-President's aides later said he was referring to the terrorist threat that faces any administration elected in November. But his remarks were taken as an inflammatory charge that overshadowed the day's exchanges on the campaign trail.
As the number of deaths of US soldiers in Iraq reached 1000, Mr Cheney sought to question how the Democrats would handle national security.
During a question-and-answer session with supporters at a Des Moines hotel, he said it was imperative that the nation made the "right choice" in November, adding that decisions made by the next administration would have an impact over the next 30 or 40 years. "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war," Mr Cheney told about 200 people assembled in the hotel ballroom.

"I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards immediately fired back, accusing his opponent of trying to frighten voters.

"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," the North Carolina senator said.
"Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
Hours after Mr Cheney's words caused a stir on news wires and cable news programs, his spokeswoman told reporters that he stood by his statements, but she sought to explain them.
As the Vice-President flew back to Washington, DC, on Tuesday evening, from a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire, campaign press secretary Anne Womack said: "What the Vice-President was saying is, 'whoever is elected, we face the prospect of a terrible attack.' But the issue at hand is whether you have the right policies in place to prevent an attack."
Asked whether Mr Cheney meant to imply that a Kerry presidency would result in a terrorist attack, Ms Womack replied: "The Vice-President is saying that we need to ensure that we have the right politics in place to protect Americans. The campaign stands by and the Vice-President stands by my explanation of his statement."
- Los Angeles Times

Sounds like mafia tactics to me. "Vote for my guy or you'll be wearing concrete shoes."

[wolf]

I gave that statement a lot of thought ... I and I think it is accurate. The character of the presidency and the willingness to seek out those who would commit terrorist acts against this nation DOES have a lot to do with the relative safety of the United States. I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

[Undertoad]

and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war

Cheney's statement was horrible and I hope they take the time to at least re-state it to emphasize the above part. The danger is that an administration decides to approach the problem as a law enforcement problem and not a bubbling international war. But the point is moot because the public wouldn't stand for it to be treated as a law-enforcement problem anyway.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by wolf

I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

The same thing that happened with Bush as president, except with less My Pet Goat, and fewer advisors running around the Oval Office screaming "IRAQ! IRAQ! IRAQ!"

What happened _after_ the reprisals against Afghanistan would have been different.

[Troubleshooter]

At least Gore has the decency to LOOK like an animatronic puppet.

[iamthewalrus109]

Cheney's statements just underline the basic premise of the entire Bush election effort in 2004, I've said it before and I'll say it again, fear. It's as simple as that. I think Kerry can restructure and do pretty well at hammering at GW's character and his record as president, even admist Kerry's as Senator. I think with current revelations about Bush and the debates I think Kerry can comeback again and make this election damn close, in a vacum, but this is post 9/11. As I've said in a new thread I started today (see Ben Barnes) I believe that inveitably people will vote on the fact that you don't change presidents in a time of war, especially this "war on terror". The Bush campaign can hammer this home with the threat of a terrorist attack with a change in guard, especially a weakling like John Kerry, or so they say, how they're able to pose somebody how volunteered to go to war as weak is beyond me. This fact only proves my point more.

It's pretty powerful stuff if you ask me, I mean how many worse than Watergate scandals can you have and still be in office? Well I think this president takes the cake. Judging by the silence of many of the moderates in Congress, and I mean Republicans here, and alot of the moderate intelligensia of this country, I can pretty much say that it's working. People are scared to death, and many believe that fighting over someplace else, ie. Iraq, is a hell of a lot better then fighting here, even if it has in reality distracted us from other threats, and can very well be a bunch of hogwash.

In the end Cheney and the rest of the team are playing this right. Even if Bush's personal credbility dries up between now and Novemeber, this senond prong will win it for them. People will still see people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld as more secure, they'll still vote on the Republican mindset, and policy and not the man GW Bush.

-Walrus

[Undertoad]

I think they will win in the end by having a 527 create a 30-second ad that shows Kerry actually stating all his different views on Iraq, followed by an "October surprise" of either the discovery of WMD in Iran or Syria, or a terrorist attack in the US. If I'm right I want credit for having said it here first.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"October surprise" of either the discovery of WMD in Iran or Syria, or a terrorist attack in the US. If I'm right I want credit for having said it here first.

if you are involved in either scenario, i don't think you can get credit for the statement.

[iamthewalrus109]

No matter what it is, whether it be the threat of a another small terrorist entity, trumped up, or raising the specter of an attack here, the terror switch is there to use. That's the crux of it, the details are almost irrelevant at this point, backdrop really. They'll do an assessment and decide then what their best option at creating a rallying point will be at that time, end of story. I'm curious to see what it will be, but it's the tactic that can be utilized that I'm more concerned with.

-Walrus

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If I'm right I want credit for having said it here first.

I'm pretty sure I already said the exact same thing back in the middle of July. But that post was lost in the crash.

[jaguar]

The irony is that is I was Osama, with his objectives and methods, nothing could possibly be more beneficial than re-electing Bush. Who would have thought it would take half a mil and 13 lives to start the US on the slippery slope, truly evil but brilliant, he worked this shit out, how Bush would react, how a public that can only ingest soundbites would react, it was perfectly planned. All he had to do was light the fuse, Bush did the rest, most terrorists can't achieve something that effective in decade-long campaigns. When the reconvene the Count of unAmerican Activities I won't even bat an eyelid.

Just think about it, he hit so many themes in the American psyche, it's....scary. Our society can't deal with full-scale asymmetric warfare without ceasing to exist as we know it, the waging of this 'war' creates the next generation of fighters and they're distributed so widely, they have no history and profiling can only backfire. We can only win this war, a war of force, by losing our own freedom. That's what I call well thought out. He found a weakness in the system and inserted the right trigger, from there it'll implode all by itself. We're fucked.

Sorry that was a little offtopic.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by wolf

I gave that statement a lot of thought ... I and I think it is accurate. The character of the presidency and the willingness to seek out those who would commit terrorist acts against this nation DOES have a lot to do with the relative safety of the United States. I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

Hrm...about OKC. Homegrown terrorism, anyone? Who's looking out after them?

Teens plead guilty in cross-burning case
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/03/cross.burning.ap/

This worries me personally more than anything, because that could easily be MY lawn they burn a cross on.

[Undertoad]

It was so well thought-out that he lost his host country and 3/4ths of his buddies.

It doesn't fit with previous attacks and it doesn't fit with what bin Laden was saying in the late 90s about the nature of the US's approaches to similar attacks. In 1997-98 he was pointing to the attacks in Beirut and Somalia and Khobar and telling people that the US was a paper tiger who can't stand getting hit and will always quietly withdraw. Even the response to the Cole was tiny and finished without being effective. For several decades that was exactly our response to every act of terror, just scurry away. He was convinced that would be our response again, but doubled and without US interests / presence holding up people like the Sauds, he would have a chance to be a bigger power broker.

[jaguar]

What he lost is nothing compared to what he gained. Some of the killings just before the attacks on enemies in Afghanistan suggests he knew well enough what would happen. Al Queda may no longer itself be a functinonal group but does it need to be? It's message has spread far and wide, from the growing civial war in Saudi Arabia to the embassy attack today in Indonesia, Al Queda itself is no longer needed. The next big attack will come from another unknown group which the media will no doubt 'link to Al Queda'. In sense, by voting for bush, the terrorists have won, it's game set match as freedom dies in the face of hatred and fear.

[jaguar]

Slightly offtopic once again and aimed more at aussie voters but I'm sure some people here will find it amusing. A different 3rd party