Dick Cheney brings the optimistic campaign

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"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."

- Vice President Richard Cheney, Des Moines, IA, Today

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20040907-8.html

[Styles 0]

Well, I know who I'M voting for...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Well.. will voting for Kerry appease the terrorists who will attack us if we vote for Kerry?

 

I need answers

[Styles 0]

Well.. will voting for Kerry appease the terrorists who will attack us if we vote for Kerry?

 

I need answers

No, what Mr. Cheney is saying (and no doubt its a fear appeal, but a damn effective one and based in truth), is that the Democrats plan for dealing with terrorism is one of a pre-9/11 world that made us vulnerable, i.e. handle it like a police issue and treat terrorists like criminals. John Kerry in charge of the War on Terror would mean treating world terrorism as a diplomatic effort rather than a military one and not taking the neccesarry steps to properly secure ourselves at home (for fear of losing civil rights), and under this plan which was essentially what we had pre-9/11 we'd become much more vulnerable to a future attack, unlike the President's more hardnosed stance on things which serves to better protect us.

Or in short, appeal to fear, dumbed down soundbyte form: A vote for John Kerry will increases the danger of getting hit again.

Done overreacting?

[snuffbox 0]

And we reach an even lower low...

[Guest MikeSC]

Well.. will voting for Kerry appease the terrorists who will attack us if we vote for Kerry?

 

I need answers

No, what Mr. Cheney is saying (and no doubt its a fear appeal, but a damn effective one and based in truth), is that the Democrats plan for dealing with terrorism is one of a pre-9/11 world that made us vulnerable, i.e. handle it like a police issue and treat terrorists like criminals. John Kerry in charge of the War on Terror would mean treating world terrorism as a diplomatic effort rather than a military one and not taking the neccesarry steps to properly secure ourselves at home (for fear of losing civil rights), and under this plan which was essentially what we had pre-9/11 we'd become much more vulnerable to a future attack, unlike the President's more hardnosed stance on things which serves to better protect us.

Or in short, appeal to fear, dumbed down soundbyte form: A vote for John Kerry will increases the danger of getting hit again.

Done overreacting?

No, no, no. Kerry's plan is to use that raging charisma that he so clearly has to convince our "allies" like France and Germany to do more of the work in this regard so we can do less.

 

BTW, nice of Kerry to mention Darfur once. Oh wait, he hasn't.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Well, he is the choice of foreign leaders, after all...

[Vyce 0]

This is all moot. Kerry should realize by now that the War on Terror / national security argument has been completely LOST by him and the Democrats this election season.

 

He's got to hang all of his dwindling hopes on domestic issues.

[Guest MikeSC]

This is all moot. Kerry should realize by now that the War on Terror / national security argument has been completely LOST by him and the Democrats this election season.

 

He's got to hang all of his dwindling hopes on domestic issues.

And, sadly, Bush has a better plan in that regard than Kerry.

 

But, hey, maybe Kitty Kelley claiming Bush did cocaine as recently as the late 80's-early 90's will do it.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

As Sean Hannity, of all people, has said, this election is very simililar to the 1945 British Parliament elections in Great Britain. Winston Churchill's platform was "I'm a great war-time leader" while Clement Atlee's platform was "I'm a great peace-time leader."

 

Considering that World War II was all but over at this time, the people voted for Atlee and his party, which knocked one of the greatest leaders in history out of office.

 

 

The parallel is that Bush is widely seen as the better war-time leader (treating the War On Terror as a war) while Kerry is seen to be a better peace-time leader than Bush (as in "The War On Terror" is not our top priority).

 

Kerry's done himself no favors by the way he's handled things. His Senate record and anti-war activities do not lend himself well to security issues. He beat himself against a wall with that, as Kerry can't offer anything better than what Bush is already doing when it comes to the War On Terror.

 

HOWEVER, Kerry could possibly get a voter swing in his favor by making the race about homefront issues. He hasn't done this for the most part except for bitching about the loss of jobs under Bush. If he could run a positive campaign about what he could do on the homefront that *is consistant with his previous stances*, he could win.

 

 

That being said, I don't think he's going to pull it off and it does NOT have anything to do with either candidate.

 

The terrorist attacks in Russia, particularly the school hostage crisis, has put such an emphasis on The War On Terror and Homeland Security that it will be hard for Kerry to make anything else the focus of the campaign.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You'd think the 'Gay Sex' claim would mean more than the Cocaine. Although there are various politicians who have done illegal drugs, while still supporting the Federal Drug Laws (or even the "Be tougher" drug laws).

 

I remember Clinton was the subject of rumors about cocaine use. And some other stuff, like sterility (which could have been tied to the cocaine) since he had only one child and all that.

 

Granted, the people who believe Kitty Kelley books and use that as inspiration to come out and vote against Bush are probably ones who are easy to persuade in the first place.

[Guest MikeSC]

You'd think the 'Gay Sex' claim would mean more than the Cocaine. Although there are various politicians who have done illegal drugs, while still supporting the Federal Drug Laws (or even the "Be tougher" drug laws).

 

I remember Clinton was the subject of rumors about cocaine use. And some other stuff, like sterility (which could have been tied to the cocaine) since he had only one child and all that.

 

Granted, the people who believe Kitty Kelley books and use that as inspiration to come out and vote against Bush are probably ones who are easy to persuade in the first place.

She's scheduled to be on "Today" tomorrow. Nice to see them sticking to their journalistic guns.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You'd think the 'Gay Sex' claim would mean more than the Cocaine. Although there are various politicians who have done illegal drugs, while still supporting the Federal Drug Laws (or even the "Be tougher" drug laws).

 

I remember Clinton was the subject of rumors about cocaine use. And some other stuff, like sterility (which could have been tied to the cocaine) since he had only one child and all that.

 

Granted, the people who believe Kitty Kelley books and use that as inspiration to come out and vote against Bush are probably ones who are easy to persuade in the first place.

She's scheduled to be on "Today" tomorrow. Nice to see them sticking to their journalistic guns.

-=Mike

I wouldn't exactly claim the Today Show as journalistic. It's more of a talk show.

[Guest MikeSC]

You'd think the 'Gay Sex' claim would mean more than the Cocaine. Although there are various politicians who have done illegal drugs, while still supporting the Federal Drug Laws (or even the "Be tougher" drug laws).

 

I remember Clinton was the subject of rumors about cocaine use. And some other stuff, like sterility (which could have been tied to the cocaine) since he had only one child and all that.

 

Granted, the people who believe Kitty Kelley books and use that as inspiration to come out and vote against Bush are probably ones who are easy to persuade in the first place.

She's scheduled to be on "Today" tomorrow. Nice to see them sticking to their journalistic guns.

-=Mike

I wouldn't exactly claim the Today Show as journalistic. It's more of a talk show.

Do you know how many "news stories" pop up there?

 

Jesus, did the press EVER dismiss the "vast right wing conspiracy" nonsense of Hillary?

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

You'd think the 'Gay Sex' claim would mean more than the Cocaine. Although there are various politicians who have done illegal drugs, while still supporting the Federal Drug Laws (or even the "Be tougher" drug laws).

 

I remember Clinton was the subject of rumors about cocaine use. And some other stuff, like sterility (which could have been tied to the cocaine) since he had only one child and all that.

 

Granted, the people who believe Kitty Kelley books and use that as inspiration to come out and vote against Bush are probably ones who are easy to persuade in the first place.

She's scheduled to be on "Today" tomorrow. Nice to see them sticking to their journalistic guns.

-=Mike

I wouldn't exactly claim the Today Show as journalistic. It's more of a talk show.

Do you know how many "news stories" pop up there?

 

Jesus, did the press EVER dismiss the "vast right wing conspiracy" nonsense of Hillary?

-=Mike

I'd consider it still a talk show. And that's not because i'm biased against Willard Scott's birthday greetings.

 

And conspiracy was probably the wrong word to describe the efforts against Clinton. It was definately vindictive. There were some characters who had long standing grudges against Clinton.

 

It seems like so long ago too. Those were the days.

[St. Gabe 0]

After seeing alot of you folks discussing this situation, I'm starting to get scared, AmikeSC likes to talk about the fringe far-leftists working their way into the mainstream of the party, and don't get me wrong, this is not a blast, but How any of you could actually defend the Vice-President for telling Americans that if they vote for the other guys they are unamerican and it would be their fault if we were attacked again is incredibly hypocritical, especially for you Mike. He just told half of America that if they go to the polls and vote democrat that they would be to Blame for a terrorist attack. Do we not see the absolute LUNACY of that? This would be on par with if Al Gore came out after 9/11 and said "If I would have been in power, this wouldn't have ever happened" You conservatives on this board really astonish me with the way you defend this administration blindly on all issues, there are exceptions of course, I recognize that some of you do alot of research on things, but how any of you can hear this and just Nod your head in aggreement and smile real big shows how desperately you lack any critical thinking skills *Cough* Slapnuts *cough* ( THAT was a Blast. )

 

I consider myself a moderate on most issues, and I am still undecided on the election, but blatant scare tactics from a former Haliburton CEO,( the company, BTW, which made the briefcase that shattered Brutus Beefcakes Face [/kayfabe])

aren't endearing me to that side of the fence.

 

If I offended anyone except Slapnuts! I apologize, but you know, wag the dog, and all that.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

a pre-9/11 world

 

not taking the neccesarry steps to properly secure ourselves at home (for fear of losing civil rights)

 

God forbid someone be concerned about that.

 

unlike the President's more hardnosed stance on things which serves to better protect us.

 

At an insane cost, such as the rest of the world protesting how we throw our weight around because we're so scared about being hit.

[Guest CronoT]

You'd think the 'Gay Sex' claim would mean more than the Cocaine. Although there are various politicians who have done illegal drugs, while still supporting the Federal Drug Laws (or even the "Be tougher" drug laws).

 

I remember Clinton was the subject of rumors about cocaine use. And some other stuff, like sterility (which could have been tied to the cocaine) since he had only one child and all that.

 

Granted, the people who believe Kitty Kelley books and use that as inspiration to come out and vote against Bush are probably ones who are easy to persuade in the first place.

She's scheduled to be on "Today" tomorrow. Nice to see them sticking to their journalistic guns.

-=Mike

I wouldn't exactly claim the Today Show as journalistic. It's more of a talk show.

Do you know how many "news stories" pop up there?

 

Jesus, did the press EVER dismiss the "vast right wing conspiracy" nonsense of Hillary?

-=Mike

From what I understand, Kitty Kelley is the left-wing equivalent of Ann Coulter. I wouldn't put much weight behind either of these ladies' arguements. These kind of "journalists" are basically thinly veiled mud slingers who secretly work for their respective political party.

 

If you can't see past the smoke and mirrors, then you need to get some education.

[Guest MikeSC]

After seeing alot of you folks discussing this situation, I'm starting to get scared, AmikeSC likes to talk about the fringe far-leftists working their way into the mainstream of the party, and don't get me wrong, this is not a blast, but How any of you could actually defend the Vice-President for telling Americans that if they vote for the other guys they are unamerican and it would be their fault if we were attacked again is incredibly hypocritical, especially for you Mike.  ,

He didn't say it would be their fault. He said if a wrong choice was made, a major attack could happen. But, hey, go with the pundits and don't actually read the transcript or watch the video.

 

Show that "critical thought" that we seem to lack. *snicker*

 

And, hey, he didn't criticize Kerry's "patriotism" --- as Edwards did to him.

 

Hell, can you name a single instance of the Repubs questioning the Dems' patriotism, because I know I can do the vice versa.

He just told half of America that if they go to the polls and vote democrat that they would be to Blame for a terrorist attack.

You read well. You're just not reading what he said.

Do we not see the absolute LUNACY of that? This would be on par with if Al Gore came out after 9/11 and said "If I would have been in power, this wouldn't have ever happened"

Well, Gore has said much worse, actually. You might want to track down his rants.

You conservatives on this board really astonish me with the way you defend this administration blindly on all issues

You missed the wide-spread bashing of signing McCain/Feingold, eh?

there are exceptions of course, I recognize that some of you do alot of research on things, but how any of you can hear this and just Nod your head in aggreement and smile real big shows how desperately you lack any critical thinking skills *Cough* Slapnuts *cough* ( THAT was a Blast. ) 

And God knows YOU are a bastion of "critical thought".

I consider myself a moderate on most issues, and I am still undecided on the election, but blatant scare tactics from a former Haliburton CEO,( the company, BTW, which made the briefcase that shattered Brutus Beefcakes Face [/kayfabe]) aren't endearing me to that side of the fence.

Yeah, you SOUND moderate.

 

Hint: Anybody who obsesses over Halliburton ain't quite moderate.

If I offended anyone except Slapnuts! I apologize, but you know, wag the dog, and all that.

I'd have to view you as being my equal to be offended.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

And we reach an even lower low...

Oh, I'm sure there have been "lower" things before this...

[Guest MikeSC]

And we reach an even lower low...

Oh, I'm sure there have been "lower" things before this...

But have we had lower lows NOT caused by him or Kamui?

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh, I thought he was talking about politics, but I guess either way it fits...

[Styles 0]

He just told half of America that if they go to the polls and vote democrat that they would be to Blame for a terrorist attack. Do we not see the absolute LUNACY of that?

 

I recognize that some of you do alot of research on things, but how any of you can hear this and just Nod your head in aggreement and smile real big shows how desperately you lack any critical thinking skills *Cough* Slapnuts *cough* ( THAT was a Blast. )

 

If I offended anyone except Slapnuts! I apologize, but you know, wag the dog, and all that.

Jesus, nice to meet you too, buddy. This how you usually enter new social groups, by delibirately insulting long standing members who you know nothing about? You could have questioned my post without being vindictive.

 

I will take apprx. 2 sentences to say you distorted what the Vice President says. He didn't say anyone would be to blame for a terrorist attack by voting for Kerry, but that the policies of treating it like a police issue rather than a military issue is what led to us being vulnerable in the first place, and would lead to us being more vulnerable in the future.

I think that was one long runon sentence.

 

As for your assumption that I'm a blind Republican yes man who doesn't ever do research or back up my views would be completely laughable to anyone who frequents CE. And that's all I'll say about that.

 

But excuse me, I have to get back to the Bush/Cheney headquarters so we can further plot how to smear John Kerry. I then hope I'm fortunate enough to be the one chosen to give Donald Rumsfeld his footrub....

[Guest CronoT]

He just told half of America that if they go to the polls and vote democrat that they would be to Blame for a terrorist attack. Do we not see the absolute LUNACY of that?

 

I recognize that some of you do alot of research on things, but how any of you can hear this and just Nod your head in aggreement and smile real big shows how desperately you lack any critical thinking skills *Cough* Slapnuts *cough* ( THAT was a Blast. ) 

 

If I offended anyone except Slapnuts! I apologize, but you know, wag the dog, and all that.

Jesus, nice to meet you too, buddy. This how you usually enter new social groups, by delibirately insulting long standing members who you know nothing about? You could have questioned my post without being vindictive.

 

I will take apprx. 2 sentences to say you distorted what the Vice President says. He didn't say anyone would be to blame for a terrorist attack by voting for Kerry, but that the policies of treating it like a police issue rather than a military issue is what led to us being vulnerable in the first place, and would lead to us being more vulnerable in the future.

I think that was one long runon sentence.

 

As for your assumption that I'm a blind Republican yes man who doesn't ever do research or back up my views would be completely laughable to anyone who frequents CE. And that's all I'll say about that.

 

But excuse me, I have to get back to the Bush/Cheney headquarters so we can further plot how to smear John Kerry. I then hope I'm fortunate enough to be the one chosen to give Donald Rumsfeld his footrub....

Slapnuts!, Cheney clearly said "if the wrong choice" was made, we would be attacked.

 

"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.

 

Now, unless Cheney is on LSD, I seriously doubt the "wrong choice" he's thinking of is his own party. Ergo, if his party is the "right choice," then Kerry, by deafualt, according to his scare tactics thinking, must be the "wrong choice."

 

So, by telling people in an implied manner that voting for Kerry will get us targeted and possibly hit again is just blatant mud slinging and slander. Stop being a GOP bandwagoneer, and think for yourself.

[Styles 0]

The danger is there that we would get hit again. Not that we WILL get hit again.

[Guest CronoT]

The danger is there that we would get hit again. Not that we WILL get hit again.

Prove to me with a definable degree of certainty that voting for one candidate or the other will increase or decrease our chances of being attacked, based solely on the candidate named.

 

If you can do that, then I'll let you off the hook.

[Styles 0]

Stop being a GOP bandwagoneer, and think for yourself.

Et tu, Crono?

 

 

What do you mean "bandwagoneer", if I supported Kerry would I be a DNC "bandwagoneer"?

 

I don't agree with every policy and stance of this administration, BUT

 

I DO think for myself, and I have made it crystal clear that I believe The War On Terror is THE most important issue we face. Period. I don't care about gay marriage, abortion, the enviornment, outsourcing, stem cells, etc. I care about the maniacs in this world with the means and motive to kill us.

 

I DO NOT trust John Kerry to wage the War on Terror as effectively or seriously as George W. Bush has, and DO feel an administraton change WOULD put us at greater risk. FDR advised that one does not change horses in the middle of a race. It would be unprecedented to change Presidents in the middle of a war and would be foolish to do so. The current administration has been here for and since September 11th, so all intelligence and strategy has resided with them. The months it would take to tranfer all that information over to a an all new administration could be crippiling for our security. We don't need our security compromised to allow for a learning curve.

 

Geez, I have the gall to justify or even agree with something the Vice President says and all of a sudden I'm a blind idelogue who can't think for himself....

[Guest CronoT]

Stop being a GOP bandwagoneer, and think for yourself.

Et tu, Crono?

 

 

What do you mean "bandwagoneer", if I supported Kerry would I be a DNC "bandwagoneer"?

 

I don't agree with every policy and stance of this administration, BUT

 

I DO think for myself, and I have made it crystal clear that I believe The War On Terror is THE most important issue we face. Period. I don't care about gay marriage, abortion, the enviornment, outsourcing, stem cells, etc. I care about the maniacs in this world with the means and motive to kill us.

 

I DO NOT trust John Kerry to wage the War on Terror as effectively or seriously as George W. Bush has, and DO feel an administraton change WOULD put us at greater risk. FDR advised that one does not change horses in the middle of a race. It would be unprecedented to change Presidents in the middle of a war and would be foolish to do so. The current administration has been here for and since September 11th, so all intelligence and strategy has resided with them. The months it would take to tranfer all that information over to a an all new administration could be crippiling for our security. We don't need our security compromised to allow for a learning curve.

 

Geez, I have the gall to justify or even agree with something the Vice President says and all of a sudden I'm a blind idelogue who can't think for himself....

The Intelligence community you're talking about, such as the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA rarely change immediately, or at all, with the changing of an administration.

 

Also, Israel has been fighting a "War on Terror" going on 50 years now, on and off. Do you expect Bush to be the President until we finally "win" that war?

 

Also, it's amusing you should mention FDR. The GOP back then was pissed that Roosevelt got elected four straight times, so they forced an Amendment through Congress, that limited all persons elected to the Presidential office to two terms.

 

In order to be able to "predict" the future, you need to learn from the past.

[Styles 0]

Also, it's amusing you should mention FDR. The GOP back then was pissed that Roosevelt got elected four straight times, so they forced an Amendment through Congress, that limited all persons elected to the Presidential office to two terms.

 

In order to be able to "predict" the future, you need to learn from the past.

Thanks for the history lesson,

I don't know what relevance that has to what I'm saying though. I want George W. Bush to be "Emperor For Life" its true, you got me.

 

Look, Mike may have the patience to sit here and argue back and forth and say cool things like "blithering pissant" but I don't. I understood what the Vice President was saying. If you don't or don't agree with it, fine, don't vote for them. Your not going to change my mind, just as Im not going to change yours.

[Justice 0]

The Intelligence community you're talking about, such as the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA rarely change immediately, or at all, with the changing of an administration.

It's not the intelligence gathering, but what they'll do with that intelligence. Bush has shown us that if he sees a threat, he'll attack before they can attack us. Kerry has said that he'll respond to any attack with incredible force, but only after we've been attacked.

 

Personally, I want the guy who will attack threats before the threats attack us, but that's just me...

 

Also, Israel has been fighting a "War on Terror" going on 50 years now, on and off. Do you expect Bush to be the President until we finally "win" that war?

 

No... does this have any real relevance or do you like spouting off retarded comments?

 

And I think Slapnuts! meant that we'll go further and fight the terrorists more effectively with Bush in office than with Kerry. 4 years can be a lot of time to change things around, and I want to move forwards in the WoT, not backwards.

 

Also, it's amusing you should mention FDR. The GOP back then was pissed that Roosevelt got elected four straight times, so they forced an Amendment through Congress, that limited all persons elected to the Presidential office to two terms.

 

So you know Junior High-level history. Is this supposed to impress us or...?

 

In order to be able to "predict" the future, you need to learn from the past.

 

... This makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever in the context of the entire argument. Maybe if you brought up actual speaking points it might, but you didn't so it sounds pretty dumb.