Vote for Bush...or DIE!!!!

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Full Text of Article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V15AG0.html)

[nicky g]

It must be reassuring that they did so well in preventing the last one.

[mikech]

"Vote for Bush...or DIE!!!!"--this was the official slogan at the RNC last week, wasn't it? I may be wrong, I get my news from Jon Stewart...

[MMMMMM]

"It must be reassuring that they did so well in preventing the last one."


Actually Nicky I believe this is true: some terrorist attacks/attempts have been averted since 9/11. Or are you saying that al-Qaeda stopped trying to attack on U.S. soil after 9/11?

[arx]

If Cheney actually said this....

"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.

I think he should not be allowed out of a mental institution, let alone be vice-president of the USA.

[nicky g]

I've no idea; but the idea that Republican government=no terrorist attacks; Democratic government=terrorist attacks is obviously insane. At least if he had have said "more" it might have made sense, if still been offensive and wrong.

[adios]

Well does it make a difference in fighting the war on terror which candidate gets elected i.e. is it more dangerous to elect one candidate over another? If not fine make a case why it doesn't matter who's elected. If so make a case why it's more dangerous to elect a Republican than a Democrat.

What I'm astonished by in the Democratic party campaign so far is that they've basically embraced and endorsed the concept of a "war on terror" that Bush has promoted. Just read the Democratic party platform. Yeah I know about nuanced positions and all but to me the whole concept could be challenged and I'm certain that many of the Democratic party faithful don't endorse the Bush concept at all. Having a debate about the concept would be a good debate to have IMO.

[Utah]

Respectfully, that was a worthless cheapshot.

Neither party, nor the American people had any appetite to combat terrorism before 9/11. Clinton's record was dismal and Bush's record was dismal prior to 9/11.

[nicky g]

"Respectfully, that was a worthless cheapshot. "

It was no less than Cheney's ridiculous scaremongering comment deserved.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Respectfully, that was a worthless cheapshot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of suspect that was his point. Cheney's comment was both silly and offensive and deserved a worthless cheapshot in turn. The rhetoric that comes out of this White House is crazy.

If you don't support us, you support the terrorists.
If you don't re-elect Bush, you can expect another terrorist attack.

[Utah]

Outside of the semantic arguments, the approach to terrorism between the two parties is fundamentally different.

The democrats was a reactionary / dont go after nations / police action policy.
The Republicans want an aggressive / proactive and premptive / military / attack nations type approach.

One is going to be better than the other. Now, you might argue that the democrat approach is better (although I certainly wouldnt). However, there is nothing offensive about taking the democrats to task for their approach that failed miserably during the 90s.

[nicky g]

"there is nothing offensive about taking the democrats to task for their approach that failed miserably during the 90s. "

No, but there is plenty wrong phrasing it as "vote for us or the country's going to get it", and it's a bit hypocritical coming from someone that you yourself said also had next to zero interest in terrorism prior to 9/11.

[Utah]

LOL.

Isnt that what all politicians do? Isnt that the very essence of any presidential race? Isnt that exactly what Kerry is doing as well?

And, at the heart of it all, Cheney has a point. One candidate will make the nature safer than the other. You might argue about which candidate. However, national security and risk of terrorist attacks is a very important issue in this race.

[nicky g]

"Isnt that what all politicians do? Isnt that the very essence of any presidential race? "

So scaremongering etc is OK because it's "what all politicians do" and it's a presidential race, but "cheap shots" are way out of line.

"One candidate will make the nature safer than the other. "
This is not quite what he said (and it's been said many times by both sides with little reaction). He effectively said if you vote for Kerry, there'll be another terrorist attack, with the implacation that if you vote for Bush, there won't. If that's not cheap I don't know what is.

[adios]

In the spirit of debating irrelevant topics:

Nicky wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
He effectively said if you vote for Kerry, there'll be another terrorist attack

[/ QUOTE ]

No he didn't.

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

The operative word is danger, is it more dangerous to elect one candidate over the other?

[nicky g]

OK, he softened it slighltly, presenting it as a danger rather than certainty. But he doesn't say "greater danger"; he implies there is no such danger if Bush wins.

[Utah]

So scaremongering etc is OK because it's "what all politicians do" and it's a presidential race, but "cheap shots" are way out of line.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you refering to my comment to you about the cheapshot? If so, that is different. This is not politics. This is a forum debate about issues. Cheapshots are not allowed here unless they are directed at Cyrus (in which case they are actually desirable /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

On the political side, its not a free for all. Much is not accepted and politician routinely cross the line. However, I have little problem with candidates exaggerating the impending disaster (economic, environmental, security) awaiting the country if the other guy is elected.

For example, have you ever heard a politician say something like, "Well, candidate X did an okay job with the environment and he did pass some good legislation. The environment will be just fine if candidate X is elected. However, I can make the environment just that much better"

Thats just not how it works.

[Utah]

semantics again.

Cheney was clearly fearmongering and he clearly indicated it was dangerous to elect Kerry.

[adios]

Ok fair enough but I'm truly astonished at the reaction from the Democratic party. Let's drag Andy into this /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Why not make the "Andy Fox" take, something like:

Bush policy is breeding more terrorists i.e. it's creating 100 times more Bin Laden's and yes the Vice President is right that this choice is very important and there is a substantial danger in making the wrong choice.

Instead the Democratic party leadership acts like "girly-men" /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[The_Tracker]

[ QUOTE ]
"It must be reassuring that they did so well in preventing the last one."


Actually Nicky I believe this is true: some terrorist attacks/attempts have been averted since 9/11. Or are you saying that al-Qaeda stopped trying to attack on U.S. soil after 9/11?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is crap, and what the bush fools would like people to believe.

Please provide me evidence that al-Qaeda has attempted another attack on US soil since 9/11 that was in fact diverted by the saviors of the planet in the White House.

It hasnt happened. But if you are stupid enough to believe it has, then you are stupid enough to believe the rhetoric that the Dick cheney is babbling.

[elwoodblues]

It's usually not a provable claim either way. Clinton could contend that he prevented a 9/11 like attack and the terrorists were just waiting for a Republican administration --- evidence? No 9/11 like attack under Clinton.

I prevented nuclear holocaust last year --- Evidence? No nuclear holocaust last year.

[andyfox]

"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"

Kerry could agree with this statement. And turn it around to show how the administration, by letting Afghanistan deteriorate into an ungovernable mess, and squandering our resources with poor and nonexistent planning for post-invasion Iraq, have made us less, nor more, safe.

I wonder if the campaign wanted Cheney to say this, or if he decided on it himself. Seems like a risky thing to say with a lead in the polls.

[andyfox]

Since I'm not available, Kerry should hire you as a campaign advisor. You've almost hit the nail on the head. Kerry has to distinguish his war on terror position from Bush's, and saying we need to bring France and Germany back into the fold is going to lose him votes. Rather than question the war on terror, though, I think he should hit Bush on how badly it's been done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Abednego]

Excellant excellant response

[Cyrus]

No one remembers John Garfield any more!

He had the ultimate come-back line ever.

[andyfox]

While trying to sell me additional disability insurance, my agent didn't think I needed additional life insurance. He told me I had a much better chance of being disabled than of dying.

And here I thought I had a 100% chance of dying.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Since I'm not available, Kerry should hire you as a campaign advisor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am available /images/graemlins/smile.gif. It's even frustrating to me watching Kerry thrash about. He certainly could turn the tables on Cheney's statement.

[ChristinaB]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/cassandra421/bush.jpg

[elwoodblues]

That either means I'm really clever or an unintentional plagiarist /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Officer Farva]

Cheney is one scary mofo. He seems capable of doing anything to anyone so as to preserve his best interests. He reminds me of the shady politicians in the political scandal movies, like the dude in Clear and Present Danger.

BTW, he was the one who originally suggesting the outsourcing of war contracts to domestic corporations. Then he went out and founded Haliburton, making millions. Haliburton was recently accused of abusing the contract they received in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Cheney threatens the American public with terrorism should they not re-elect him.

How do these people get into power in the first place?

Read a Tom Clancy novel and find out.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Then he went out and founded Haliburton, making millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahahahaha he wasn't the founder of Halliburton. At least try to make your fairy tales rhyme. I can't handle this anymore today, my sides are aching. Later.