• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

By AMY LORENTZEN

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"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 told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "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. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

Edwards added that he and Kerry "will keep American safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.
 
You gotta hand it to the right - when it comes to shameless tactics they corner the market.

I love how Cheney wedged Saddam into his terrorism/9-11 spiel. Keep on blurring that line, Oil Man. 😉
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

By AMY LORENTZEN

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"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 told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "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. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

Edwards added that he and Kerry "will keep American safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.

I think you bolded the wrong part. You bolded the editorial so I'm going to bold the quote.

"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,"

Now while an implication may be that you should vote for Bush(duh), this line was directed at kerry's Convention speech where he said "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So again this is another example of waiting to be attacked before acting. Cheney said that we shouldn't be playing defense in the war on terror - we need to be playing offense and it seems that according to kerry - we have to wait until attacked.
You may not agree with "pre-emption" in this war on terror but I'll take pre-emption over having to wait...

Oh, and incase anyone saw a clip on the news. I was on some bleachers to Cheney's left, back by the balloons😀

CsG
 
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

While technically a true statement, the far more accurate statement would be that "the nation faces the threat of another terrorist attack no matter who we choose on Election Day." And while Cheney is a deadly threat as a debate opponent, he's hardly a credible bearer of a "warning" which is so transparently partisan. Statements such as this don't make me feel more inclined to vote for Bush/Cheney, if anything they do exactly the opposite.
 
"Ya know, this is a nice joint you got heah. Would be a shame if it accidentally caught fire and you didn't have no insurance... Damn shame, know wuttamean?"
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry

By AMY LORENTZEN

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"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 told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "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. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

Edwards added that he and Kerry "will keep American safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.

I think you bolded the wrong part. You bolded the editorial so I'm going to bold the quote.

"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,"

Now while an implication may be that you should vote for Bush(duh), this line was directed at kerry's Convention speech where he said "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So again this is another example of waiting to be attacked before acting. Cheney said that we shouldn't be playing defense in the war on terror - we need to be playing offense and it seems that according to kerry - we have to wait until attacked.
You may not agree with "pre-emption" in this war on terror but I'll take pre-emption over having to wait...

Oh, and incase anyone saw a clip on the news. I was on some bleachers to Cheney's left, back by the balloons😀

CsG


Uh...who do we need to pre-empt this time, CsG?
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...who do we need to pre-empt this time, CsG?

Uh...who do we wait for to attack us this time, conjur?

CsG

I say we go after the Haitians. Those darn refugees are nothing but terruhists.
 
I say we go after the Haitians. Those darn refugees are nothing but terruhists.

To hell with Haiti, let's go with Jamaica. Better beer and music there, plus they'll be too stoned to put up much resistance 😉

 
You may not agree with "pre-emption" in this war on terror but I'll take pre-emption over having to wait...

It makes me sick that people will eat this crap up to justify Iraq, yet they don't mind that we bungled Afghanistan letting al Qaeda (you know, those people who did 911?) slip away. We gave them a two month head start post-911, left all the borders open, sent in too few troops and let unrealiable northern alliance militia let everyone go at Tora Bora. People are so ignorant to the real war on terror, just swallowing Fox news up like meds. Not that they really want to win, the war mongering neocons love this kind of never ending un-winnable war. Welcome to the next age of ever growing defense budgets and bases in the middle east.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Uh...who do we need to pre-empt this time, CsG?

Uh...who do we wait for to attack us this time, conjur?

CsG
Yeah ummm going on the offensive seems to be working real well for the Russians and their Chechen counterparts. It also seems to be working real well for Israel and their Palestinian counterparts. I wonder if you'll ever see the lesson of reality here Cad?

I agree that tracking/locating and neutralizing REAL terrorists (when we can find them to begin with) is a great strategy, however picking Middle Eastern countries more or less at random to bomb into submission doesn't seem to be achieving our goals in any real sense.
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Now while an implication may be that you should vote for Bush(duh), this line was directed at kerry's Convention speech where he said "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." CsG

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us. and this is a line just before the line you quoted!

Although the whole thought is much better than the pieces -

I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. Here is the reality: that won't happen until we have a president who restores America's respect and leadership -- so we don't have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops ? not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives ? and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists.
 
There is a fallacy in your arguement.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

I think you bolded the wrong part. You bolded the editorial so I'm going to bold the quote.

"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,"

Now while an implication may be that you should vote for Bush(duh), this line was directed at kerry's Convention speech where he said "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So again this is another example of waiting to be attacked before acting.

Not true, you are trying to get one meaning out of two sentences.
"I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.

Force can be applied pro-actively without requiring a state of war to exist.

Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."

This can also be read: "Don't shoot blindly, but prepare you attack for when the enemy is identified
and targeted"

Cheney said that we shouldn't be playing defense in the war on terror - we need to be playing offense and it seems that according to kerry - we have to wait until attacked.
You may not agree with "pre-emption" in this war on terror but I'll take pre-emption over having to wait...

Of course by that logic its better to attack any country (no matter how tenous the connection) that
to use other resources (like the new and improved intelligence agencies) to help flush out, and better
weaken, the foundation of terrorism worldwide.

According to the logic you just applied, a vote for Bush/Cheney will have us at war with Iran or
North Korea sometime in the next term.

Oh, and incase anyone saw a clip on the news. I was on some bleachers to Cheney's left, back by the balloons😀

CsG

Sorry I missed it.




 
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Now while an implication may be that you should vote for Bush(duh), this line was directed at kerry's Convention speech where he said "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." CsG

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us. and this is a line just before the line you quoted!

Nice out-of-context quote there Cad. You must be learning from your Sith Lord master, Darth Cheney.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: PELarson
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Now while an implication may be that you should vote for Bush(duh), this line was directed at kerry's Convention speech where he said "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." CsG

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us. and this is a line just before the line you quoted!

Which makes the "any attack will be met with a swift and certain response" even more damning because it put that statment in the context of the fight on terrorism.


****

DM, did waiting to be attacked work?

I agree, we need to attack the real terrorists. ''Saddam is one who is and has acted like a terrorist" - 12/11/01 - guess who?😉

"[ I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein." ... "I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11..." - 12/11/01 - guess who?😉

Need more quotes?

****

Todd33 - like I said - you don't have to agree with it as you are entitled to your own opinion.🙂

I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn?t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It?s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.
12/14/01 - guess who?

CsG
 
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

Just fear mongering. Notice how there was no 'chatter' about attacks on the RNC and the press covering it like there was for the DNC.
 
The only example of pre-emptive use of military force we have by the Bush Admin is the Iraqi invasion, still represented as part of the WoT by Cheney, even though no operational links with anti-American terrorists has ever been shown... his speechwriters remain masters of false association and innuendo, also character assassination by implication...

Bravo, Dickie! You remain one of the masters of sleaze...
 
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
DM, did waiting to be attacked work?
Did attacking work? Who knows? How do we gauge if a particular tactic is working or not? All I can do is look at similar examples of your preferred strategy: Russia-Chechnya & Israel-Palestine. Did taking the fight and aggressively attacking work for either Russia or Israel? I think you know the answer to that.

Furthermore, how do we know that attacking Iraq didn't fuel the flames of terrorism and aid terrorist recruitment by stirring up more resentment and anger? How long do you think it will take to understand the repercussions of our actions in Iraq?

Lots of questions and not so many answers. Which is why Cheney is talking out his ass.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
DM, did waiting to be attacked work?
Did attacking work? Who knows? How do we gauge if a particular tactic is working or not? All I can do is look at similar examples of your preferred strategy: Russia-Chechnya & Israel-Palestine. Did taking the fight and aggressively attacking work for either Russia or Israel? I think you know the answer to that.

Furthermore, how do we know that attacking Iraq didn't fuel the flames of terrorism and aid terrorist recruitment by stirring up more resentment and anger? How long do you think it will take to understand the repercussions of our actions in Iraq?

Lots of questions and not so many answers. Which is why Cheney is talking out his ass.

Well, we have a "maybe" and then what we know happens when we wait. Waiting doesn't work - because they will still attack. Destroying them before they attack sounds like a better plan to me🙂 I think too many people are looking for or are thinking that there is some quick magical silver bullet to stop terrorists - but there isn't.

CsG
 
Back
Top