Cheney: "Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities"

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Cheney: Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities

 

1 hour, 12 minutes ago 

 

By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS, Associated Press Writer

 

CARROLL, Ohio - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday raised the possibility of terrorists bombing U.S. cities with nuclear weapons and questioned whether Sen. John Kerry could combat such an "ultimate threat ... you've got to get your mind around."

 

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us — biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans," Cheney said.

 

"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Cheney said.

 

Cheney, speaking to an invitation-only crowd as he began a bus tour through Republican strongholds in Ohio, said Kerry is trying to convince voters he would be the same type of "tough, aggressive" leader as President Bush in the fight against terrorism.

 

"I don't believe it," the vice president said. "I don't think there's any evidence to support the proposition that he would, in fact, do it."

 

The Democrats called Cheney's comments ironic.

 

"He has the audacity to question whether a decorated combat veteran who has bled on the battlefield is tough and aggressive enough to keep America safe," said Mark Kitchens, Kerry campaign national security spokesman. "He wants to scare Americans about a possible nuclear 9/11 while the Bush administration has been on the sidelines while the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran — the word's leading sponsor of terrorism — have increased."

 

The Kerry campaign has contended its Republican opponents are trying to frighten people with warnings of likely terrorist attacks in the United States and by suggesting America's enemies want Bush to be defeated.

 

In Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 7, Cheney told supporters: "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, 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 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war."

 

these don't exactly top the September comments.

 

we'll see what happens

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Man, these scare tactics by the Dems are getting out of hand. Oh, wait...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

this would be more entertaining if Bush made Marv Albert his running mate in 2000.

 

"The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us - biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept. YES!"

[Dr. Tom 0]

I think Cheney has always had a point (and Bush, too, when he mentioned it in the debates) about Kerry having a September 10th mindset. He obviously does. How else to explain the fact that he wants to give nuclear technology to Iran, a country his own national security spokesman takes to task (without mentioning Kerry's brilliant plan to make them an even bigger threat)? How else to explain his desire to rely on alliances that simply can't be made in the case of Iraq? The global test? He's definitely a 9/10 thinker, and I for one think a Kerry presidency would be absolutely disastrous for the US from an anti-terror perspective.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

How else to explain the fact that he wants to give nuclear technology to Iran,

 

That's hyperbole. He's not giving any technology to Iran.

 

How else to explain his desire to rely on alliances that simply can't be made in the case of Iraq?

 

He desires to compromise to reinforce our troops in Iraq. Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see Bush with a better plan to get us out of Iraq.

 

The global test?

 

Overblown talking point. He's said he won't hesitate to protect our nation without allies if needed. Global Test refers to cases of nation building.

 

You can say whatever you want about Kerry and vote for whomever you want based on your opinions; however, they shouldn't be construed as anything more than that. You're using talking points as justificaton for your stances, and that's simply disingenuous.

[Justice 0]

How else to explain his desire to rely on alliances that simply can't be made in the case of Iraq?

 

He desires to compromise to reinforce our troops in Iraq. Will it work? Maybe, maybe not. But I don't see Bush with a better plan to get us out of Iraq.

With who? What allies? Give me countries that will come on board with Kerry as President that won't with Bush. Kerry has already verbally lashed out at our current allies enough, so let's hear him produce some of his own.

 

The global test?

 

Overblown talking point. He's said he won't hesitate to protect our nation without allies if needed. Global Test refers to cases of nation building.

 

Bah, sure. He hasn't shown me ANYTHING that says he would. He's all about "Striking back with great force" after an attack, coalition building, and all that jazz.

 

Hell, with new findings from the Duellfur Report, one wonders if letting weapons inspectors and sactions work are really the brightest stances.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

With who? What allies? Give me countries that will come on board with Kerry as President that won't with Bush. Kerry has already verbally lashed out at our current allies enough, so let's hear him produce some of his own.

 

So... having no plan (Bush) is better than wishful thinking? BRILLIANT!</guinness>

 

Bah, sure. He hasn't shown me ANYTHING that says he would. He's all about "Striking back with great force" after an attack, coalition building, and all that jazz.

 

...uhh... he's not the president yet... so how would he show you anything? His comments are all you have to go by. He's made comments stating that he'd never hesitate to unilaterally protect our nation.

 

...

 

...

 

Am I missing something, or are you just being terribly partisan here?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

 

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

 

The part involving the world is in the past tense, meaning, after the event. The present tense part was in making the case to your country.

 

Basically, if you strike pre-emptively, make sure you're doing it for the right reasons.

 

I don't think the American Government is as trusted in the world as we were in 2000. To have others in the world trust our word doesn't mean we have to be weak. It's about credible leadership.

 

(and yes, Kerry can speak French, which means he can tell the French off in their own tongue if he has to. Ha)

[NoCalMike 0]

well since the war in Iraq had nothing to do with protecting out nation I don't see where the conflict with the "global test" statements are. I think Kerry made it clear that when need be, he will not hesitate to take the necessary actions to protect our country, but at the same time laid out a decent case that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with protecting us.

 

As far as terrorists, bombing US Cities, well once again what if any relation does this have to do at all with Kerry's stance on the Iraq war? Bush seems to be the one confused about who the terrorists are.

[Special K 0]

It's the same fear-mongering crap they've been doing since this campaign began.

 

So: according to both sides, If Kerry is elected, we'll be bombed, but cripples will walk. How to choose?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

As far as terrorists, bombing US Cities, well once again what if any relation does this have to do at all with Kerry's stance on the Iraq war? Bush seems to be the one confused about who the terrorists are.

It has to do w/ Kerry treating terrorism as a criminal issue instead of an act of war... a 9/10 mindset.

[NoCalMike 0]

As far as terrorists, bombing US Cities, well once again what if any relation does this have to do at all with Kerry's stance on the Iraq war?  Bush seems to be the one confused about who the terrorists are.

It has to do w/ Kerry treating terrorism as a criminal issue instead of an act of war... a 9/10 mindset.

As opposed to what, Bush's plan of not going after terrorists and instead invading countries with pre-emptive strikes?

[Guest GreatOne]

Yep, can't believe we pulled out of Afghanista..................oh wait.

[NoCalMike 0]

Yep, can't believe we pulled out of Afghanista..................oh wait.

well we took such care of Al Qaeda, that they weren't able to pull off anymore terrorist attac....oh oops. I forgot, as long as it isn't on American soil, then it doesn't count. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED 2004~!

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

If John Kerry said this it would be a dirty political scare tactic that would cause many on the board to go on a rant about how the Dems are horrible people and John Edwards is just a used car salesman who happens to be a trial lawyer, oh wait it's the same thing.

 

If Cheney says this, it's great insight. Not to mention that he allows the possibility of another terrorist attack on US soil, coincidentally right before the election. That could be a great political move if people think he's right, but if they don't have a double standard and look at it as a underhanded political move then it takes away a lot from his integrity.

 

Yeap, coincidentally.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

ranting how one side has a double standard is a bit narrow minded. Some of us on the left have double standards. Some more than others. Having a double standard is human nature. Although when it's excessive, I can see the objections.

 

It's sorta like bashing just one side for lying. Both sides twist the truth. Although not to the same degree. The pure truth is too much for a lot of people to handle. They want sugar, not salt.

[Guest MikeSC]

With who? What allies? Give me countries that will come on board with Kerry as President that won't with Bush. Kerry has already verbally lashed out at our current allies enough, so let's hear him produce some of his own.

 

So... having no plan (Bush) is better than wishful thinking? BRILLIANT!</guinness>

So, you prefer Kerry's non-plan to Bush's "non-plan"?

Bah, sure. He hasn't shown me ANYTHING that says he would. He's all about "Striking back with great force" after an attack, coalition building, and all that jazz.

...uhh... he's not the president yet... so how would he show you anything? His comments are all you have to go by. He's made comments stating that he'd never hesitate to unilaterally protect our nation.

He has a record --- and voting against the Gulf War in 1991 is going to hang him. THAT war had EVERY "requirement" he's ever stated --- and he STILL opposed it.

As far as terrorists, bombing US Cities, well once again what if any relation does this have to do at all with Kerry's stance on the Iraq war? Bush seems to be the one confused about who the terrorists are.

No, you seem to think that SOME Muslim extremists are perfectly reasonable people.

 

Again, bringing up the World War II example, attacking Germany before they attacked us would be wrong.

 

If you're going to fix a problem, you fix the WHOLE problem.

If John Kerry said this it would be a dirty political scare tactic that would cause many on the board to go on a rant about how the Dems are horrible people and John Edwards is just a used car salesman who happens to be a trial lawyer, oh wait it's the same thing.

He's been saying it.

 

For months.

 

"He made us less safe" ring a bell?

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

ranting how one side has a double standard is a bit narrow minded. Some of us on the left have double standards. Some more than others. Having a double standard is human nature. Although when it's excessive, I can see the objections.

 

It's sorta like bashing just one side for lying. Both sides twist the truth. Although not to the same degree. The pure truth is too much for a lot of people to handle. They want sugar, not salt.

I was more or less referring to people on the board, I never said all conservatives have double standards, nor did I even mention anything about grouping all of them together. So since I didn't mention a specific case of a liberal being biased and using an example, you automatically assume that I'm talking about the whole side here? No need to use bad logic and bring this discussion away from where it should be.

 

To Mike: When I said if I didn't mean like "he might or might not say" I meant it with a comparison, sorta like "If John Kerry does this, you're all over him. If it's cheney, you agree with him." The grammar was not very good thus making it confusing. I don't feel like editing, but I hope this is an adequate explanation for what I meant, more like a comparison of people's reactions to the same statements, it is just that one has an R beside their name while the other has a D.

[NoCalMike 0]

Again, bringing up the World War II example, attacking Germany before they attacked us would be wrong.

uh huh, so attacking a country actively trying to take over the world, and attacking a country that is basically rotting from the inside out, is the same thing...!?!

 

The WWII example is stupid.

[Guest MikeSC]

Again, bringing up the World War II example, attacking Germany before they attacked us would be wrong. 

uh huh, so attacking a country actively trying to take over the world, and attacking a country that is basically rotting from the inside out, is the same thing...!?!

 

The WWII example is stupid.

Yup.

 

Like it or not, we're at war with TERRORISM --- and to pretend Iraq was not involved is naive to a stunning level. Terrorists want to take over the world.

 

There is no difference. Both were the right choice.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Again, bringing up the World War II example, attacking Germany before they attacked us would be wrong. 

uh huh, so attacking a country actively trying to take over the world, and attacking a country that is basically rotting from the inside out, is the same thing...!?!

 

The WWII example is stupid.

Yup.

 

Like it or not, we're at war with TERRORISM --- and to pretend Iraq was not involved is naive to a stunning level. Terrorists want to take over the world.

 

There is no difference. Both were the right choice.

-=Mike

"war on terrorism" is a bushism that changes in meaning daily to suit whatever new, knuckleheaded policy he tries to introduce. The War with Iraq being the first major example, besides the Patriot Act.

[Guest GreatOne]

Say it on three, you know you want to,

 

HALIBURTON!~ Or better yet, in protest of Bush, just add a U to your screen name. UNoCal Mike, that's the ticket!

[cbacon 0]

Again, bringing up the World War II example, attacking Germany before they attacked us would be wrong. 

uh huh, so attacking a country actively trying to take over the world, and attacking a country that is basically rotting from the inside out, is the same thing...!?!

 

The WWII example is stupid.

Yup.

 

Like it or not, we're at war with TERRORISM --- and to pretend Iraq was not involved is naive to a stunning level. Terrorists want to take over the world.

 

There is no difference. Both were the right choice.

-=Mike

Incorrect. Terrorists don't want to 'take over the world'. Terrorism is synonymous with blowback. It is the result of frustrated middle eastern communities as a result of American foreign policy. In essence, the United States has inadvertently created these terrorists, namely Osama Bin Laden and if you want to classify Saddam as such, then him too. And if the goal is to erradicate such terrorists, you don't go to Iraq to achieve this. By doing so, your adding fuel to the the fire, and recruitment for al Qaede and other groups will begin to flourish more. It's only inticing more terrorism and resentment towards the United States. Less we forget the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudis. To compare this to the attack on Germany during World War II is asinine.

[Guest GreatOne]

Yep, it's all that damn American foreign policy,

 

which would explain the endless Israel/Palestine conflict (which I'm going out on a limb as saying that would qualify under terrorist activities--Palestine), right?

[cbacon 0]

Are you implying that the 9/11 attacks were not a result of US foreign policy? That the martyrs that hi-jacked the planes were part of a grand scheme for Muslim world domination?

 

We're talking about blowback AGAINST the US. The situation between Israel and Palestine has yet to see any attacks against the US. Yet.

[Guest GreatOne]

Well, I kinda hate to inform you that military action against Iraq WAS in fact US foreign policy when Bush took office, forgotten but not non-existant. Since you wanna be so broad and all..................

 

The goal of said terrorists (I'm sure Mike has a better word for them) is to denounce the West--which btw includes YOUR country--and its' ways and convert as many as possible to Islam. They use US foreign policy as a backdoor for their cause.

 

I'm sure it had a lot to do with it but what the fuck you think we should do, capitulate? Or maybe we can take a global test!

[Justice 0]

Incorrect. Terrorists don't want to 'take over the world'.

Well, they do intend to try and conditions for the dominance of one form of Radical Islam. "Killing or converting all infidels" is definitely in their M.O, and that definitely sounds like a plan to dominate the world.

 

Terrorism is synonymous with blowback. It is the result of frustrated middle eastern communities as a result of American foreign policy.

 

No, there is a difference between 'frustration' and 'fanaticism'. Frustration is what the Quebecois have towards the Canadian Government. That is not the same thing as the fanaticism that radical Islamics have towards the West. Trying to argue that is just a sad case of moral relativism.

 

In essence, the United States has inadvertently created these terrorists, namely Osama Bin Laden and if you want to classify Saddam as such, then him too.

 

Saddam was in place long before us, and his continued stay was more the result of Russian and French weapons deals that gave him the power to pacify his people than American Foriegn policy placing and keeping him in power.

 

Osama... Well, Russian and then Saudi policy actually created him. First the War in Afganistan put him in as a rebel leader and then the Saudis pleading for our help and his objections created him. It was passive on our part and active on theirs if we really want to place blame, though I don't think any of them are truly responsible for him.

 

And if the goal is to erradicate such terrorists, you don't go to Iraq to achieve this. By doing so, your adding fuel to the the fire, and recruitment for al Qaede and other groups will begin to flourish more.

 

They would flourish anyways. By not taking any true decisive action in the Middle East, they could easily claim that the Americans are too fearful to try to invade, and still many would flock to what they thought was a winning cause. In all honesty, after 9/11, after it became something serious, there will always be people joining the Terrorist cause.

 

But, and I ask this respectfully, what sort of policy pre-Iraq do you think would decrease the rate of Terror growth or at least have it slow down? I would really like to hear an honest answer from you because I am very curious.

 

It's only inticing more terrorism and resentment towards the United States. Less we forget the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Saudis.

 

Then again, many of their Saudi connections were renounced. They had more connections to Afganistan than Saudi Arabia by a long shot. And, frankly, outside of less funding for Israel I doubt most active actions would be looked upon with resentment in the world.

 

To compare this to the attack on Germany during World War II is asinine.

 

As long as you don't compare it to Vietnam.

[NoCalMike 0]

Say it on three, you know you want to,

 

HALIBURTON!~ Or better yet, in protest of Bush, just add a U to your screen name. UNoCal Mike, that's the ticket!

stop being so thickheaded, for a group so intent on stretching every skewed statement to support such nonsense as "Saddam was a part of 9/11" you sure seem at the same time to turn a blind eye to any corporate wrong doing in this whole mess.

[Guest GreatOne]

Of course that would cancel out your blind eye towards the fact that I never was under the assumption that Saddam was behind 9/11,

 

or would that just ignore it altogether?

 

Pot, meet kettle, no..................fuck it

[NoCalMike 0]

Of course that would cancel out your blind eye towards the fact that I never was under the assumption that Saddam was behind 9/11,

 

or would that just ignore it altogether?

 

Pot, meet kettle, no..................fuck it

Not just "behind 9/11" but, "in the loop" with al qaeda, or having knowledge of 9/11, or working with the Taliban, or whatever talking point Cheney likes to throw in any given day.