I gotta chalk Cheney’s position up to the poor state of critical thought in this country, and that makes me despair for the outcome of the next election. His recent claim that a Kerry victory will mean more terrorist attacks is a fallacious appeal to fear at best, but supporters of the Shrub/Halliburton ticket are just lapping it up, as usual.

did

Sorry, the article lost me with, “Ford, like Bush later, hadn’t been elected president.”

Did, Cheney’s remarks were (if you read them in context) that when another attack comes, the reaction of a Kerry administration would be the wrong one (treating it as an isolated crime vs part of an ongoing war), not specifically that it’s more likely to happen under a Kerry presidency.

That all said, Cheney’s never struck me as a particularly good politician or statesman. I certainly wouldn’t have minded seeing him dumped retired this round, esp. since it could have lined up a viable GOP candidate for 2008 (which is currently lacking in their stable, from what I can see).

wow. thanks for bringing that article to my attention. really interesting read.

One can only hope that the curse is still active…

With statements like:

“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.”

We can only hope that he fades into the sunset.

Did, Cheney’s remarks were (if you read them in context) that when another attack comes, the reaction of a Kerry administration would be the wrong one (treating it as an isolated crime vs part of an ongoing war), not specifically that it’s more likely to happen under a Kerry presidency.

Now, I’d have to agree with ‘did’s’ original assertion on this one.  Cheney was addressing a Republican support group and told them that “we” need to make the ‘right’ choice in November.  He went on to say…

“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,” Cheney said.

That’s the context and that pretty much makes Cheney a fear mongering asshole in my book.

***Dave, what possible context could be given to make such a statement valid and not fear mongering?

The full (or fuller) quote is:

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.

The context is a long-term geopolitical direction, treating the conflict with Islamicist militants as a war (thus allowing for counterstrikes and preemption), not a law enforcement (catch and try’em after they do their thing) action.

One can certainly debate over both the strategy and over the characterization of what the Kerry-Edwards administration would do (and good luck pinning that down), but I see it as a far cry from “Elect Kerry and the terrorists will blow up your children!” statement it sounds like with just that shorter snippet.

fantastic site you stupid bastard.

Here’s the fundamental flaw I see with Cheney’s logic.  Over the past 100 years the United States has entered into a myriad of military conflicts for numerous reasons.  The United States has also suffered attacks at home and abroad over the course of the time period.  Based on his stance during the Bush Sr. administration and the purported draw-down of intelligence resources directed at former cold-war interests I would surmise that Cheney is being arrogant and hypocritical at best and fool-hearty and fear mongering at worst.  Either way, he’s not a man that belongs any where near a war on terrorism in the future.

***Dave, it still sounds like he is saying that if we elect the wrong people into the White House, we are going to get hit by a terrorist attack.

He talks about the policies of the last 40 years and talks about creating new policies that may be in place for the next 40 years, then switches to this if we don’t elect the right people thing, saying that we will be “hit” and will fall back into a pre-9/11 mindset.

Are we saying that Cheney has an equal ability to speak as Bush does? Because, from what I am getting from all that, it still sounds like a threat that if we don’t elect them, we will be attacked.

From Cheney’s speech:

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.

If Cheney had left the upcoming election out of his appeal to act responsibly you could possibly say it wasn’t a partisan ploy to play on the fears of a nation. We know the Bush Administration’s opinions of the Democrats when it comes to national security. We know that Cheney is saying once again that Bush=strongest on terrorism. If Cheney suggests a right decision, then by inference he’s also suggesting a wrong one and that, by default, would have to be voting for Kerry.

Cheney knows how to tug at patriotic heart strings and he knows when to present fantastic imagery (like a mushroom cloud for instance) and hyperbole even if he’s the furthest thing from a patriot, statesman or hero himself.

If Cheney had left the upcoming election out of his appeal to act responsibly you could possibly say it wasn’t a partisan ploy to play on the fears of a nation. We know the Bush Administration’s opinions of the Democrats when it comes to national security. We know that Cheney is saying once again that Bush=strongest on terrorism. If Cheney suggests a right decision, then by inference he’s also suggesting a wrong one and that, by default, would have to be voting for Kerry.

Um ... that kind of sounds like a speech any politician would make.  Like, say John Edwards:

A president must do more than shrug his shoulders when confronted with these dangers. With John Kerry in the White House, we will have a policy that is both strong and smart. We will lead our allies more effectively, using every tool in our arsenal. And preventing nuclear terrorism will be our highest priority. This is what we will do. This is what they can’t do. And that is a difference.

Or, say, John Kerry: 

In his most pointed attempt yet to distinguish his stand on the war from President Bush’s, Sen. John Kerry said Wednesday that “extremism has gained momentum” and the world is more dangerous because of the Bush administration’s bungling in Iraq.

Distinguishing between the course of Our Administration vs Their Administration is basic for presidential candidates, as are appeals to frothy ideals or shadowy fears.

In the case of the Cheney quote, I maintain that what’s being said is that the danger is the US policy framework responding to terrorism under a Kerry administration is likely to be less effective than that under a Bush administration, using the Cold War as an example.  That is, indeed, partisan, but it doesn’t make it per se fear mongering.  Unless any mention of the possiblility of terrorism is, in fact, an appeal to fear (in which case I suggest that both candidates and their veeps are guilty).

(I find it amusing that if Cheney mentions the possibility of a terrorist attack happening if Kerry is elected then he’s using fear tactics to get people to vote for Bush, and if he mentions the possiblity of a terrorist attack happening in a Bush administration then he’s playing CYA for his boss.)

Hello All,
I don’t agree with or like a lot of the things that the Bush/Cheney administration has done over the last three years, but most importantly for me they have demonstrated visible, constant leadership in a time of war.
As a USMC veteran and a father of four, the security of our county far overweighs any domestic issue right now.
We have to win this war so that we have the ability to be able to focus on domestic issues.
With what the USA is facing today from the radical Islamic’s my opinion is that a John Kerry/John Edwards administration would be the wrong move for our country.
We need a strong, proven leader today.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards have any practical experience as a “Leader.�?
Kerry’s four months in Vietnam and 19 years in the Senate as one of 100 do not afford the leadership experience necessary to lead the greatest county in this time of concern.
Edwards’ years as a lawyer and one term as a Senator in no way give him any credentials to run the county or the military.
I know that a lot of people don’t like Bush and I can understand why.
But voting for Kerry just to appose Bush is a mistake in IMO.
Best Regards_

So let me see if I understand this correctly. You want someone in office that will charge into Iran to “preemptivly” eliminate the threat of a nuclear attack, then maybe North Korea for the same reason, then maybe Chechnya because we all know what scum they are…

I think I would rather have a leader that made sure that there is indeed a threat before stomping all over the world and pissing off our foreign allies.

At least Kerry actually went to Vietnam as opposed to out illustrious leader and his multiple deferral using VP. Considering how disastrously Bush has managed the ‘war on terra’ so far I’m not sure his “constant, visible leadership” counts for a whole helluva lot. At this point I think Bozo the Clown could do a better job of running this country than the bozos currently in power.

No, the only mistake I could make this election would be to vote for the incompetent incumbents.

Rob, thanks for the civil tone and willingness to speak your opinion.

While you make a valid point when you say it takes experience to run this country, you’re forgetting that George Bush had none when he took office. As most presidents do, he relies (or he could have if he had picked the right members) on a knowledgeable and capable cabinet.

Too, just because you gave your time to the Marine Corps, it apparently didn’t teach you to know who your true enemies are. Going to war to possess another nation’s oil is hardly the better way to calm down those “radical Islamics” and it always makes me especially sad to hear someone who’s in, or has been in service, defend an administration that has so little regard for the soldiers.

There are no purely domestic issues any longer. We are a part of the world and the world’s concerns are ours.

But I do see better how the Bush administration’s fear tactics are working. They’ve apparently got you believing you need them, and only them, in order to be safe.

Too, has anyone noticed how it’s only important to America to keep a running total of Americans killed in Iraq and not of how many Iraqis have lost their lives due directly or indirectly to our occupation of Iraq?

It’s just more of that “The Greatest Nation” bullshit and shows how little we really care for the rest of the world.

I’ve noticed something about people who are for Bush/Cheney vrs Kerry/Edwards. The folks that have Bush/Cheney stickers on their cars seem to have Lexus’, Infinity’s, Cadillacs, where the Kerry/Edwards stickers are on Toyota Corolla’s, Escorts, etc… Hmmm, I wonder if there is something to that. Must be a coincidence.

Guys,
In a normal election cycle I would agree that a new President can “learn on the job.�? But we are at war today.
Bush was the governor of Texas for two terms. Being a governor of a major state is akin to being a “mini�? president.
So I would argue that Bush had more executive experience at the beginning of his term than Kerry is bringing to the table.
“Brock�? I can tell you that the true enemy of the USA today is radical Islamics. We are not going to war for oil. They want us ALL dead. To them we are all the same.
I also agree that the world’s concerns are ours. We are the only super power left. This radical Islamic problem has to be confronted head on and eliminated. It is for our interests and that of all the free people in the world. I don’t want my kids to fear going to school like they do now in Russia.
This is not unsubstantiated “fear tactics�? here. The threat is real. I have seen it with my own eyes.
This is why America is great. Everybody can have an opinion.
The people that we are fighting only want one opinion, theirs.
Best_

Bush was the governor of Texas for two terms. Being a governor of a major state is akin to being a “mini�? president.

Bush is campaigning on the slogan, “Results matter.” Texas is one of the most polluted states with some of the poorest results in education, but it is a leader in execution of prisoners of all ages. 

I would dispute that Bush has learned on the job.  He isn’t any good at vetoing expenditures - good, bad, or whatever.  He took world-wide sympathy and cooperation after 9/11 and managed piss off all our allies… the one likely asset that might have made us more secure.

We need someone who can reconnect us to our allies while handling complicated, subtle problems.  No amount of macho trash-talking will stop terrorists.  We will need the cooperation of our allies, and we need to stop unnecessarily giving rhetorical ammunition to our enemies.

“Mini” president?  Got that right.

Allies…
We have had some like Great Britain and Poland for example that understand the danger and have helped the USA.
Conversely, we have had others like France, Germany and Russia that favored their own financial stakes in the oil concerns of Iraq rather than the safety of the world.
Kind of ironic now in the case of Russia. This month a bombing, planes bought down and hundreds of kids killed. Now President Putin is promising the same pre-emptive stance as President Bush.
I have been very disappointed in our “allies.�?
Maybe we do need someone who can reconnect with our allies, but I don’t see how the inexperienced and untested team of Kerry and Edwards could change the equation and not leave the US in the lesser position.

Rob, have you noticed that Britain has backed away from that support in recent months?

Pre-emptive strikes are really nothing different than terrorism. Espcially with poor intelligence.

I am not American so I usualy just read people’s comments on the American elections. But I’ll say this…
-America is safer with the republicans or Bush?....Where’s the proof of that!

-The war on terror?...America is attacking countries that have not attacked America.

If you think about it, since Bush is president, his administration has done nothing to repair the image or the feeling around the world that Americans have become the bad guys.

I love the U.S.A and it’s people but I do not understand why half of the people of America are behind (BUSH, CHENEY and others)A group of businessman who seem to care more about the monetary aspect and the visual prestige of being in POWER.

These politicians are brigning the world back into global religious conflict.

I am just going to read now.

This Kerry/Bush debate really tires me out. Know why? Because it’s too late. I’d bet my life savings on Bush winning in November. I don’t support him, but then even if I was American, I wouldn’t vote for Kerry. There’s something very wrong when the only vote with any power is against an incumbent rather than for a candidate.

Anyway, just so it’s noted and recorded, I think Bush will win in November, and then the economy will collapse sometime between then and 2008. At that point, a candidate (probably Democrat, but they’re legendary in terms of fucking things up) will emerge to lead America and the world through financial crisis.

But nothing, really, will change.

By the way, while I’m here doing predictions, I’ll take a wager from anyone that Barack Obama will be president within the next twelve years.

Argue if you want to, but remember I said this.