After posting well over 1,000 times on this board, I have a good idea of what flies and what doesn't fly around here. And either they ignore my opinions here or they have adapted and manage to argue with me anyway--whatever works. Thanks for the "heads up," though.
Actually, I knew about the flights out of the country before Fahrenheit 9/11, believe it or not. I'm sure you'd find out from my posts dated prior to the release of the movie.
Did I say all? They WERE mostly Saudi hijackers; do you refute that? There is more evidence that Saudis hijacked the flights that crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon than there was evidence found of the WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION after Bush's mission was allegedly "accomplished"! Also, I do not recall saying in this thread that the country Saudi Arabia was "at fault." But the terrorists sure as hell weren't Iraqi, and any terrorist connections with Iraq were at best tenuous, at worst flagrant allegations.
"More terrorists"...thank you. You would rather see the terrorists in Iraq, but as another thread states, there are now 1,000 deaths of American soldiers connected to the invasion and the occupation of Iraq, the bulk of the deaths attributed to the attacks after the country was conquered. Do these American deaths not count?

There have been more terrorists recruited since the invasion of Iraq, and the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. This type of warfare is not effective against terrorism. What is effective is the human intelligence factor, something that Bush didn't take the time to build up after Clinton and other predecessors allegedly gutted it. Rather than build it up again, Bush rushed into war with Iraq, because he was more interested in getting his trophy, Saddam Hussein.

And what did we expect them to say after the worst attack on U.S. soil by Middle Eastern terrorists? "Yeah, we've been in contact with Islamo-fascists"? But, "sin in haste, repent at leisure"--there were plenty of U.S. citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay without habeas corpus or legal representation with merely suspicion of unlawful activity to hold them there. We sure changed policy, didn't we?
Um, the U.S. Army said Osama bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora and, since there hasn't been the hoopla for him as there was for Saddam's capture, I would tend to believe them. "Rather close"--is that a term from playing horseshoes?
I dunno. I think it was George W. Bush who was so roundly applauded when he spoke of bringing these guys "to justice." Unless Number 43 has some reason for not going after him...

You know, the more I think about it, the less I think that George W. Bush has been effective in this so-called War on Terror. He knows how to commit men, and Lord knows he can spend the money on it. The troops have certainly been effective in taking over a country with a fighting force nowhere near our equal, but who knows how much more effective they would be with a better Commander-in-Chief, especially one who places greater value in human intelligence and diplomacy than rushing into war?

I don't know where you are getting your poll numbers from, but it might be nice to see a source or two. The support for Iraq amongst the general population is very low and certainly far less than 52%. There are probably a few links in old Iraq threads, but I seem to remember the number being something like only 40% of people thought Iraq was the right decision the last time someone posted a poll. If there are any recent ones it is likely lower.


Do you really think the terrorists care who is in office? Are they going to just give up if Bush wins another 4 years and attack right away if Kerry wins? Terrorists have it in for America for much more complex reasons than who happens to be in office.

Kerry, as Zell Miller reminded us, needs to be judged by his record and not by his campaign rhetoric. His record is clear. He is weak on defense and I woul not expect him to be as forceful in the war on terror as Bush.

Kerry got an unlikely endorsement today on NPR. It appears that the North Koreans are watching the election carefully and rooting for Kerry!

They feel he will be softer on their nuclear weapons development than Bush.

IMO they are correct.

The numbers on Iraq were never at 40%, according to CNN/Gallop.

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"

The latest number is 49%, the lowest number was 44% (in May) and has been generally rising since May.

Further, 57% of Americans say that it was not a mistake to send troops to Iraq, which is also trending higher in the latest polls.

The polls are mixed, but still fairly positive given the media coverage of the Iraq war.



The difference is: Cheney is talking about Kerry's policies and Kerry is talking about Bush's policies. They are both saying the same thing: the other guy's policies will make us less safe.

Left off of Cheney's comments is his explanatory statement at the end:


I think Cheney is saying that we will be hit again, regardless of who is President. What will be different will be the response. Cheney is saying that Kerry will react as if it was a criminal act (as Bill Clinton did after the first World Trade Center bombing), while Bush sees it as an act of war.

String together the two statements into one (since he used an "AND")


Re-read that and then tell me it is a criminal statement, or over the line, or whatever. The press reported one part of the statement, which caused the uproar.

Well that’s what puzzles me. Kerry has stated that he will keep troops in Iraq until it’s stabilized, so he’s staying the course as well, no difference between the candidates there.

But yet the Bush camp is claiming Kerry has no real plan although he has been a bit more specific (special ops, increasing the overall number of troops).


Don’t know where you get your numbers but heres a sampling of the cost of the war.



The actual deployment of the troops is the highest cost of the war. On the low end of the estimate the round trip ticket cost more than maintaining a presence and actually conducting the war. Since fewer special ops will be deployed the cost saving alone are tremendous. So I don’t think your argument holds water here.

I think what Cheney was actually referring to is the fact that Kerry has voted AGAINST every major weapon system we are using today in the military



obviously Kerry doesn't want the military to use any weapons so how are we to defend ourselves?

And he's lying - sorry, distorting the truth - as usual. Let's see, how did Cheney himself feel about expensive weapons sytems back in October of 1990?



and...





Factcheck.org

Think someone's being a bit disingenuous here? The fact is, at the time of most of these votes, we didn't need these weapons systems.

You've got to kidding me, you do realize your source is only two votes?

So by voting against two broad-based military spending bills this translates to you: "Kerry has voted against every major weapon system we are using today in the military"

Vote #273
Vote #319

And that's all ya got, I like how you spread it out so it was harder to read the into the fact it's two bills GIGANTIC military spending bills

Getting back (sort-of) to the Cheney-Edwards contest, Cheney decided today not to repeat this silly charge that something scary might happen if Bush wasn't re-elected.

Instead, he went to that good old standby of his: "Saddam was sleeping with my al Qaeda!"

Cheney Again Links Saddam to Al Qaeda



And then... in yet another attempt to explain why economic numbers just haven't been as rosy as Bush predicted, Cheney said:

Cheney: Economic Stats Miss EBay Sales



So that's where all the economic growth has been going! eBay!

I think Edwards hit the nail on the head, though, with his response:

So who's right? Cheney or Edwards?

This topic has gotten a number or responses, so I’m going to post the quotes again.

DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5940961/



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953239/

From almost instant damage control, I would say that Edwards was right and that Cheney stepped over the line. Even before Air Force two left Des Moines, Iowa Cheney aide Anne Womack was attempting to put a better spin on the VP’s remarks.

Joe Trippi explaind in an MSNBC article.



<snip>




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5940961/

YESTERDAY

1. Bush declined comment but White House Aide Scott McClellan continued the spin.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/...y.ap/index.html

2. Cheney leaves campaign trail, but returned today.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...ey-remark_x.htm

TODAY

Cheney attempted to clarify his own remarks in an interview with the [i]Cincinnati Inquirer[i]



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0002EDT0400.DTL

Sorry Mr. VP, but I don’t think your explanation washes. Your boss butchers the English language and then tells Rush Limbaugh he needs to be more “articulate.” Really? Your statement, however, was mean, hateful and calculated. I’m very angry with you Mr. Cheney and apparently other Democrats are as well. We won’t be turning the other cheek on this one.

TOM DASCHELE



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/...y.ap/index.html

AL GORE



<snip>



http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-us...y-top-headlines

If the terrorists of the world could have bought an American administration hoping to get help from them in recruiting new terrorists and in furthering the causes of their terroristic activities...

...they could not have gotten better results than they have gotten from the current, incredibly incompetent, administration.

For these guys to pretend that they are the answer to the terrorism problem is like gasoline suggesting it is the answer to forest fires.

They are pathetic....and Dick Cheney fear-mongering for votes stands out as particularly pathetic.

Again, the comment is taken without even the full sentence.

If you see the tape of this, Cheney is in a long, run-on sentence. He did not pause between the comment being focused on here and the one that I posted.

The full comment:



Cheney's explanation is not spin. He explains it in exactly the same way that I did.

The choice is over policies and who will make us safer.

The statement says "We'll be hit again and then fall into the pre-9/11 mindset that these are criminal acts and not acts of war."

I don't think Cheney was really implying that we could not (or would not) be hit if Bush is re-elected. He is talking about the reaction to a future attack, not the likelihood of attack.

If the choice is over policies and who will keep us safer Amlord then it bears remembering exactly WHO was in the White House on September 11 three years ago from tomorrow.

Bush and Cheney. America's guard down. Almost 3,000 dead.

And now they want "four more years?"

Is this the same Dick Cheney who was asleep at the switch? The same day Cheney made his incredibly arrogant and fear-mongering remarks, Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge once again declared terrorists still plan to disrupt the November elections. Exactly whose fault will it be if the country gets struck again before Election Day?

This from the 9/11 Commission Report: "President Bush announced that Vice President Cheney would himself lead an effort looking at preparations for managing a possible attack by weapons of mass destruction and at more general problems of national preparedness." It took Cheney a few months simply to get an admiral to head the effort, the report said, concluding: "The Vice President's task force was just getting under way when the 9/11 attack occurred."

Cheney has no business telling anyone the specious lie that only he and Bush can keep Americans safe. The greatest success in the history of terrorism came under their watch. They were tested and they failed the test miserably.

My only complaint about that interpretation Amlord is consistency. If you're willing to give Cheney slack for context and arguably dare I use the word "nuance", then it cuts both ways.

I happen to agree. From an intent standpoint, I don't think Cheney is saying that if Kerry is elected another 9/11 will happen and if you vote for the good guys that won't happen. Rhetorically, however, its a very delicate distinction. Cheney is a smart man and knows how rhetoric can create images for folks even if its not part of the literal device (using Al Qaeda and Iraq consistently in the same sentence is a good example). Presentation is critical and its what lends credence to your opinion vs. the text of the speech.

I disagree with Cheney's viewpoint, however, about a reaction to an attack. Kerry has consistently stated his approach in the WoT will be to project offense. Contrary to a few of the conservative opinions of those expressed regarding the "what if", if Gore were elected, Gore likely would have hit Afghanistan as well. That target only made sense as they were harboring those who attacked us. To think any president would have done otherwise is just silly.

Doc

Putting the blame for the attack on the Bush/Cheney administration is a gross oversimplification, Nighttimer. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the exact same thing wouldn't have happened under Gore, for example. The problems that created the attack had been decades in the making....saying this was the fault of Bush/Cheney would be somewhat like putting a new captain at the helm of the Titanic in the last minute, and them placing the blame for the sinking on him. Or, perhaps a more fitting example--is the Democratic party therefore responsible for Pearl Harbor?



It will be the fault of whoever perpetrates the attacks. If there turns out to be some specific action or mismanagement on someone's part that led to the attack, then they might share in the blame. However, again, you can't just place the blame on who happened to be running the ship at the time (again, unless you are also willing to lay the hundreds of thousands killed during WWII on the Democratic party).



You see comments like this, and you start to understand why all the conservative political pundits constantly talk about Democrats liking to dish it out but being unable to take it. Am I to gather from this discourse that you'd actually like to see a blow by blow comparison of comments made by and against this administration to see who has delivered the majority of the low blows? If this isn't an example of the pots calling the kettle black, then nothing is. Were Cheney's remarks intended to create a political divide? Let me think...we're in the middle of an election, he's a politician....let me hazard a guess at 'yes!'. Is Edwards' response intended to do the very same thing? Let me think...we're in the middle of an election, he's a politician....let me hazard a guess at 'yes!'

So, we're in a political season, and both sides are playing politics, and some here are astounded by this fact? One would think that looking out from such a glass house might afford a better view....or are the windows getting steamed from some of the hot air?

FWIW--Both Kerry and Bush would, I think, continue almost all of the current anti-terrorism policies, so there's not really much of a difference here. As Amlord stated, there is a potentially different future mindset (war vs criminal acts), which could have an impact long term (with both pros and cons). So, what we have here is a politician making a point he feels is advantageous to his side. If you are going to get all worked up over this, are you prepared to do the same when one of your candidates does likewise? Is so, I suggest stocking up on the Tums, cuz you'll need cases of them over the next couple of months.

I agree with Amlord that Cheney was not implying that, were Kerry elected we would be attacked (any more than Kerry was implying, at the DNC, that he would only respond in the event of an attack). Both statements are being taken out of context and spun.

However, I still disagree with Cheney's sentiments. I see know reason why we shouldn't treat terrorists as criminals rather than as war heroes. Clinton's reponse to the first WTC attack left its perpetrators behind bars. The Bush administration's response to the September 11 attack has left those behind the attack at large - and has cost us another thousand American lives - and ten thousand Iraqi lives - in a reaction which isn't even related to that attack! If this was indeed an act of war, maybe the Bush administration should have declared war on terrorism, not Saddam Hussein.

And, yes, Hobbes, the Democrats were responsible for Pearl Harbor (or , at least, the FDR administration was) - but that's another debate. I don't argue that the Bush administration was responsible for the September 11 attack, though, but that there's a hell of a lot more they could and should have been doing to prevent or minimize it - like continuing the policies of the Clinton administration which had already prevented a dozen attacks on American soil rather than abandoning them with no replacement policy or reading the Hart-Rudman report and implementing its recommendations or listening to (or even meeting with, for God's sake) their own Terrorism Czar or alerting the authorities and emergency services in New York to the August PDB - even as late as the time of the first tower being struck.

I believe that the September 11 attack would not have happened under Gore (or just about anyone else), not because a lack of preparedness, but because of who Bush is, what his connections are, what his family history is, what his neocon handlers stand for, and - yes - precisely because bin Laden may have suspected that he would not be treated as a criminal, but as someone who would be glorified through the overrreaction of widespread, costly, wasteful, distracting, unrelated, and illegal warfare which could only possibly swell the numbers of his supporters.

Cheney's contention that this policy will continue under a second administration is probably the best argument anyone needs to hear that a second Bush administration should never happen.

Be fair, Wertz. The reaction was also to overthrow the Afghanistan government (well, after giving it a lot of money, but that's another story), which we probably can agree was a necessary step. Now if they had only followed up on all that success continuing to focus on that country instead of one that had "better targets" for bombing...

Afghanistan is another reason why I don't feel the Bush administration can "keep us safe". Did the overthrow of the Taliban get us any closer to bin Laden? When we attacked that country, the Taliban was considering turning bin Laden over to us - they only wanted the "evidence" of bin Laden's guilt (which Bush had already shared with Tony Blair, allegedly) - as was their right - before moving on his extradition. Instead, the Bush administration offered an illegal ultimatum - and invaded. That alone must have swelled the ranks of al-Qaeda by a few thousand.

Again, if this is the policy which Cheney is advertizing as less of a "terrible mistake" than treating al-Qaeda like an international organized crime ring - and stamping them out - then I'd have to conclude that the man is clinically insane.

I am not sorry to see the Taliban out of power - I am not sorry to see Saddam Hussein in custody - but I don't see either as doing anything to apprehend those behind the September 11 attack (though I am very sorry that we had to become international vigilantes to effect both) - and I certainly don't see the invasion and occupation of Iraq as having anything remotely to do with the "war on terror", apart from making the enemy stronger. Were I Cheney, I'd just drop it - and count on the American people to remain ignorant of what they're really doing: fostering terrorism and inciting acts of violence against American citizens.

"Gross oversimplifications" are part and parcel of the Bush Administration, Hobbes. They don't do "nuance," remember?

The parsing of Cheney's words reminds me of the slippery way Clinton defined what "is" meant. The way of Cheney is to never say directly what you can lead people to believe.

The "woulda/shoulda/coulda" of what might have happened if Gore were President on September 11, 2001 is speculation. The fact is Bush and Cheney were in power that day and the buck stops with them. I'll accept the fact that Franklin Roosevelt should shoulder the burden of Pearl Harbor if you will accept the fact that 9/11 falls on George W. Bush.

Last night I watched the New England Patriots beat the Indianapolis Colts. It made Quarterback Peyton Manning's record against the Pats 0 wins and 5 losses, despite the fact the game was for all intents and purposes lost when his running back fumbled before crossing the goal line. Quarterbacks, like presidents, get too much credit and too much blame, but it comes with the job.

It is perfectly fair to examine how well Bush and Cheney have protected the United States--before, after and since September 11, 2001. Particularly so when Cheney has the gonads of a elephant to insinuate voting for John Kerry is a vote for another terrorist attack.

Yes, the ultimate laying of fault for another terrorist attack belongs to the terrorists themselves. However, when you make protecting the homeland the centerpiece of your reelection strategy as Bush has, you have to be prepared to take the heat if after all your banter and bluster there's another massive loss of life and destruction of property.

Placing the blame on Bush may be a reach, but holding him accountable is not.

Yes, I was not trying to defend it--merely pointing out that this is simply how politics are played these days. I would much prefer none of them did it, but simple fact is that all of them do.



As with AmLord, I think Cheney was referring more to the different mindset towards terrorism than the insinuation you state, although he certainly did leave that insinuation open (which I'm sure was not accidental). As for the whether or not the administration should be judged on how it has protected the US, I agree--I just think that no administration would have had time to change the course of the ship prior to 9-11 so soon after taking office. Reaction after that? Judge away....



This is very true (in fact, was why I argued against the raising of the alert levels as a political strategy). Even if Bush wouldn't actually get 'blamed' for such an attack, it would certainly open up the 'well, this isn't working--maybe we should try something else' can.

So who's right? Cheney or Edwards? Will a Democrat in the White House expose the U.S. to greater risk and it takes a Republcan POTUS to keep us safe? Do terrorists even care about who's in charge?

Weasel wording is de rigueur for political campaigns. I’m sure Cheney really did mean “if you vote for Kerry, terrorists will attack” because that’s just the way Cheney is. But he left just enough ambiguity to deny that’s what he meant, knowing that the majority of people who heard him aren’t going to parse his words to ferret out any other “alternative meanings”.

I’m sure terrorist do care who’s in charge, because it will shape how they react. They know that Bush/Cheney will respond to violence with even more violence, thereby keeping the circle of act/react intact.

I thought this essay by William Saletan (read the whole thing...and check out that sneer in the photo... ) explained it brilliantly . We’re going the wrong way, and someone (us, the voters) needs to STOP them!

In conclusion, keeping us safe has nothing to do with whether a "Democrat" or a "Republican" is in charge; what matters is the character and philosophy of the PERSON in charge. We are in grave danger if Smirk, Sneer and Co. remain in charge.

Using this logic, we'd have to question why the terrorists hit us in such a devastating way while Bush was in office. Those who have critical thinking skills will see the illogic of this statement, but my guess is that Cheney was aiming for those who react over-emotionally to the idea of terrorism.

The statement also doesn't take into count that our actions in the "War on Terror" have most likely fuelled the terroristic fervor -- Bush has created more potential terrorists.

I think that Kerry would be a slight improvement, but seeing how he voted to go to war in Iraq in the first place and is for continuing the occupation, I don't think he will be a significant improvement over Bush in the terror department.



Terrorists have an agenda about our foreign policy -- they seem to be unhappy with it whether it's a dem or repub in the white house, probably due to very little difference in how either party has handled the middle east in the last few years.

You know, I hear this sor of a thing a whole lot from Bush critics so I'm not just picking on jenreiautter here. "Fueling terrorost fevor", "making them hate us more".... stuff like that. I think we need to consider the fact that on 9/11, 19 guys hijacked 4 airplanes with the plan to fly those planes into buildings and kill not only themselves, but a whole bunch of innocent people. How much more "feverish" can it get than that? When 9/11 happened, we saw widespread celebrations in many Arab nations in the Middle East, celebrating the death and destruction. How much more can they hate us than that? It seems to me that they hated us pretty much as they can hate us prior to the "War on Terror". I'm not saying that all Muslims or Arabs hate us, they clearly don't, but the fringe elements that do aren't going to change their minds. They need to be destroyed, not "rehabilitated" because rehabilitation is not possible with that kind of hatred. That's what the war on terror is really all about. It's not pretty, but it is reality.

Simple question Aquilla - were there more terrorist attacks in 2003 or in 2004? Furthermore, how many soldiers have died in Iraq due to terrorist actions? I think you know the answer to both questions, but you can't bring yourself to say that we are in fact not winning the war on terrorism.

You fuel terrorist fervor by "occupying" an arab nation, it doesn't get much more blatant than that.

Let me see if I know where you are going here. We are to now judge the war on terror based on the number of attacks worldwide? If they go up, we are losing, is that what you mean? By this "logic", or lack thereof, a roadside IED in Iraq is the same as the first plane crashing into the WTC. An RPG launched at a Humvee in Baghdad is the same as the second plane crashing into the other tower. A suicide bomber blowing themselves up is the same as the third plane hitting the Pentagon and a rocket launched at a hotel where Paul Wolfowitz was staying is the same as the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Is that how you are attempting to frame the debate? Is this the Kerry position? Does he equate a terrorist firing on armed US Marines standing guard in Tikrit as being the same as blowing up the Bay Bridge at rush hour in San Francisco? You are. DO you really want to take that position?

Not where I'm going at all.

If you claim to be successful in the war on terrorism then what would that mean? I would assume it would mean that there would be fewer terrorist attacks, terrorists would be on the run and we would be making arrests/kills for major operatives. People would feel safer because terror was reduced.

Now bearing that definition in mind, lets look at the facts:
1. The number of terror attacks world wide has greatly increased since 9/11 with some particularly major ones like Spain. Furthermore, the number of terrorist attacks has increased from 2003 to 2004 despite the white houses' original fudged numbers.

2. More brutal acts of terror have occurred in this year than in previous years, the beheadings come to mind here. Our government has constantly been claiming that "Americans are safer" and in the same breath claiming we are in grave danger. It would seem to me that people do not in fact feel safer and to make matters worse are getting mixed messages.

3. Bush has all but given up the hunt for Bin Laden and in his won words doesn't consider him a priority, I'm sure the families of 9/11 vicitims are jumping for joy over that one.

4. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda is weaker or on the run. they have continued to engage in acts of terrorism and the US has continued to get involved in the middle east furthering their cause.

So you are wrong about the position I'm taking. You need to take off the partisan glasses Aquilla.

All of this is I believe some of the underlying thought in jenreiautter's post and the posts of others and they are 100% correct.

Again swinging this back on topic, a vote for Kerry isn't a vote for terrorism because he plans to change our strategy in quite a few key areas.

Exactly. So waging war on them certainly won't help matters, will it? Is the Republican strategy, "If you can't make them agree, kill them"? President Bush needs to reconcile with the allies which he has pushed away with his "you're with us or against us" mentality. I sincerely wish people would stop painting in black and white, where those who are against us are evil and those who are with us are saintly. The old euphemism "Walk a mile in their shoes" seems appropriate except many Americans think that is pointless. It's attacking the effect, not dealing with the cause. Our entire culture seems fixated on fixing the problem without correcting the underlying conditions. McDonald's made you fat? Sue 'em. Nudity on TV? Send in the FCC. Dying of lung cancer? Get a lung transplant and continue smoking.

Well, I went way off-topic, but merely to explain that we need to focus on the reasons they hate us, not simply that they hate us. With President Bush in office for another four years, it will not get better. I don't know if Kerry will be an improvement. But a change might do wonders. Nobody can predict for sure... not even Cheney.

I don't think the United States "deserved" what happened to us three years ago tomorrow, but I don't think it happened in a total vacuum either, Aquilla.

There are a lot of people in the Middle East who hate America because they do hate freedom, they hate our way of life and they want to erase our country from the face of the earth. I get that. However, there are those who don't hate us, but really wish we would either be more even-handed in our approach to the Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and those of the Islamic faith or just stay the hell out of their business.

Hate is a wasteful emotion but for some of the petty tyrants running some Arab nations, hate is all they have to sell. To the extent that our foreign policies, lack of interest and understanding feed into this hatred, we provide ample fuel to fan the fires of the despots.

There are some people to whom kindness and compassion are wasted on and particularly zealots who prefer death to life. I am not excusing the evil of the Osama bin Ladens of the world. I don't cast my lot with nihilists. But some of these monsters are ones we created. Why are we so surprised when they develop plans of their own and turn on us?

That is something Dick Cheney and his nominal "boss" don't seem to get. Just another reason why we're not safer with these bozos driving the bus.

I think that being successful means that we now have a great handle on the terror situation worldwide. We are ready and willing to fight the terrorists. Before 9/11, the American people and government had no will to do so. And look what happened. Now we have a better grip on terrorism. Just think of some of the attacks that were prevented after 9/11. The shoe-bomb on the plane, the people planning on blowing the brooklyn bridge, people wanting to blow up the verazzano bridge (lived maybe 500 yards from my house)...and so many more. We are now not allowing threats to gather. They have no safe havens. They are constantly on the run...for the rest of their lives. It is them that will be afraid...not us.

There is no victory. Bush was probably wrong to say it but was correct. You cant defeat an idea or frame of mind. One may see it as something that is not worht the fight...not worth the blood. But i would much rather fight the improbable with the smallest glimmer of hope then just accept circumstances and lose any will to meet the enemy in battle. That is basically what why we are fighting this war...hope. The hope that our future and the future of children will not be plagued with the terror and bloodshed that this generation of Americans has. And you know what? No matter how unattainable that goal of freedom and safety without fear is, i cannot see an America where the will to fight is gone. We are fighters. Even if certain death and destruction is likely...America will always fight. Maybe we can't win. So what? At least we know we did all we could. We didnt back down and we didnt let them get the better of us.

I do not understand the belief that the war in iraq and american policy after 9/11 has somehow made us less safe and actually created more terrorists than before 9/11. It troubles me because what was the policy BEFORE 9/11 that made them hate us...and committ the atrocity? I cannot believe that someone is going to tell me that things have not been improved in our favor. We were never safe. Before 9/11...none of our policies were so dramatic as to justify the attack and the fall of the twin towers. I cannot see how our policies after 9/11 changed anything.

EDIT: by saying "not changed anything" i meant that they couldnt hate us more, not that the situation has not improved...because it has.

So who's right? Cheney or Edwards? Will a Democrat in the White House expose the U.S. to greater risk and it takes a Republican POTUS to keep us safe? Do terrorists even care about who's in charge?

Edwards is right, in fact I often wonder what would have happened had Gore been elected. Terrorists react to two things that they attack in anyway available, financial and military fixtures. Right or wrong the terrorist is responding to injustices they believe are being perpetrated on them by the rich and the powerful. Cheney is an iron fist in a velvet glove and he is just blowing smoke here.

I believe Kerry could do an equal, if not better job than Bush in dealing with this matter. The GOP is merely trying to make him look like McGovern when in reality, he's a trigger-pulling LBJ. If we want to go by that logic, we could then argue that 9/11 occured because of an obvious weakness in the executive branch beginning in January of 2001 on the part of the new administration, which unlike Clinton's, failed to prevent a major attack.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." Hermann Goering

thank you for that link, English Horn

The remarks by Cheney hit squarely on target, and many beleive him and the spin-masters, word for word, which should scare the holy grey matter out of our skulls.

PACPanzer

thank you PACPanzer for that observation. I agree.

Several here - myself included - have criticised Bush for invading Iraq, and rightly so.
countrockula

Thank you Wertz for giving reference to the Rudman-Hart commission, also.
That is a story worth talking about, since the 9-11 commission from its inception, was not going to lay blame, nor was it going to hold anyone accountable, which it should have.
I think if Gore were in office, 9-11 would never have happened, (I'm sorry, I forget who suggested that), based on what I know.

"Some non-state terrorist groups have... demonstrated an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction...It is clear that the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons being used against the US - while not immediate - is very real"
-George W Bush, May 8, 2001
Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, statement by the president.
for related links, see
http://www.washingtonpost.com, Feb 1,2001 or do a search on Rudman-Hart Commission. The conclusion of this commission was to do just what Bush did after 9-11, to create a cabinet level homeland security dept.
I also have Worse than Watergate, the secret presidency of George W Bush, by John Dean. Here is the link for those that missed it in DaffyGrl's post.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040910.html

But I have gone far afield, once again.
The purpose of quoting Goering above, was to illustrate how like our one time enemies we could become. Cheneys remarks are off-base, and to think people beleive him, just stuns me.
While we can't blame the president for something as horrific and unprecedented as 9-11, we can hold him responsible.


Since Bush's rash and irresponsible decision to invade Iraq, our forces are in a hornets nest, even when the 9-11 commission concluded Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. That is why we are less safe today and that is why this administration should be accountable, as the Constitution so clearly states.
Because this issue is front and center, we as a nation have a lot of explaining to do to the rest of the world. Regardless of what happens on Election Day, I hope whoever is the victor will be responsible and tread lightly, and sensibly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but these two statements seem to be at odds. Surely bin Laden will be as committed to the destruction of the infidel United States even with a blue-blooded Catholic at its helm?

I understand your point about hostile action aiding groups like al-Qaeda in their recruitment efforts. Yet such a thesis ignores an important point: it only takes one terrorist to kill a thousand innocent Americans, but it takes money, power, and organization to get him from the Middle East onto a plane in Boston, or an explosive-loaded van in New York. Surely destroying the sources of that terrorist's money and organization is more important than thinning out the ranks of his compatriots and moving him to the front of the queue.

Report Shows Bush Neglecting Hunt for al Qaeda
While George W. Bush is reputed to be a decisive leader for the War on Terrorism, his leadership decisions are dead wrong. He was so dead-set on attacking Iraq and Saddam Hussein, he diverted our forces from hunting down Osama bin Laden.

Now Iraq is full of Shi'a and Ba'ath resurgents, al Qaeda and other terrorists who have streamed in to get a crack at our troops. They're doing their best to "bring it on." Downtown Baghdad has bombs going off in front of police stations where Iraqi recruits are lined up to get work in law enforcement. There are many areas in the country where it is reputedly "unsafe" for American troops to be stationed. Where is the victory?

And what about our old enemy, Osama bin Laden? Last year Bush downplayed the fact that he had escaped. This man is still at large and still plotting against the United States.

I fail to see how Bush is such a great leader in this war. I also fail to see any evidence from those loyal to Bush that John Kerry would do a worse job.

This is a widely held assumption I haven't seen much proof of. Which forces were diverted? What impact did that have on the hunt for OBL? In general, it was mainly special forces being used in Afghanistan, and regular army in Iraq. So, to think any forces were diverted is a big leap to begin with. Second, even if forces were taken out of Afghanistan, given the time and status when that happened, it is also a leap to say that this would have had any impact on the hunt for OBL.

Kerry was in town yesterday for some campaigning and stopped by the city's major daily newspaper to interview for their endorsement. The funny thing is he might get it and this is a rock-ribbed Republican rag that hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since FDR.

Not that is discouraging the Republicans from continuing to charge that a President Kerry would be soft on terrorism. At the very least they are painting a dire image that electing Kerry and the Democrats are exactly what Al Qaeda wants.

On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." On Fox News, Hatch said Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

• On Sunday, GOP Senate candidate John Thune of South Dakota said of his opponent, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle: "His words embolden the enemy." Thune, on NBC's "Meet the Press," declined to disavow a statement by the Republican Party chairman in his state saying Daschle had brought "comfort to America's enemies."

• On Saturday, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.) said at a GOP fundraiser: "I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they would be more apt to go [for] somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops." Asked whether he believed al Qaeda would be more successful under a Kerry presidency, Hastert said: "That's my opinion, yes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Sep23.html

What's the message today from our Republican leaders? If you don't support the president you're giving aid and comfort to the enemy and you're inviting the terrorists to strike. If you don't believe our occupation of Iraq is a brilliant success you want Saddam back in power. If you vote for John Kerry the terrorists are gonna kill yo' mama.

The Republican strategy is to scare people to stay home, pull the covers over their heads and don't vote--at least not if you're going to vote for somebody not named George W. Bush.

This is based on a premise that people are stupid. People will believe anything if you tell them it long enough and loud enough. People want to be safe and feel secure and if you have to convince them that only the president who was in power on the worst day in American history is the only person who can protect them---well, it's a stretch, but you only have to keep them scared for another month or so.

Then if the terrorists strike again anyway, you can always say, "Ya see? We TOLD you John Kerry and those liberals were making it more likely for terrorists to hit us!"

I don't think people are stupid. The Republican Party does. Pretty soon we'll know who's right.

Think we're at the stage of the game where outlandish accusations will be all we get from Republican talking heads. It's all they have left.

Rational thought tells me that it doesn't matter to the terrorists who is in power. They care about their causes (and there are many), period.

And a rational conclusion is that no matter who is in power, we will be at risk for attack from terrorists. They work hard all the time to attack, and having Kerry in power won't cause them to work any harder.

I'll personally feel safer that our homeland won't be attacked with Kerry in power. My reasoning involves the fact that Demos aren't as trigger-happy as the Republican neo-cons are, and have demonstrated. My greatest fear of the Repub neo-cons is that their policies will goad a nuke country to attempt a launch on us, and that leads to a counter launch, and that leads to another launch by Russia, and then we don't have to worry about terrorists ever again.

The Global War on Terrorism will have thus been won by destroying the world.

Yee-hah.

I've another take on this: A Kerry administration will likely concentrate more on protecting the homeland than reengineering the ME. More bucks for homeland security, fewer bucks for foreign escapades based on wild-eyed idealism. Or is it dim-eyed idealism? Yep, that's better.

From what I saw of the situation while I was in Iraq, I would have to say that terrorists around the world will be better off with the continuance of a Bush regime here at home. Since his decision to invade Iraq it has become a training ground for terrorists, both al Qaeda and others (such as Zarqawi's group) and now has open borders that are easily crossed by "jihad tourists" of all kinds. Heavy handed tactics, followed by complete withdrawal from cities considered "too hot" provided fodder for recruiting insurgents against us. Combine this with the fact that BushCo has lost interest in capturing "Osama been-Forgotten", and the message is sent that America (either as a nation, or as represented by the soldier on the street) can be attacked with impunity as long as Bush is in office. After all, look at what al Qaeda did September 11th, and note that nobody has been convicted of a terrorism-related offense in the three years since.

BushCo has damaged alliances that were iron-clad on 12 SEP 01, shredded our credibility in the community of nations, given terrorist recruiters all the ammo they need to gather new fighters, has allowed them to turn the war in Iraq into a war of liberation against us, resisted formation of the Homeland Security Department, resisted formation of the 9/11 Commission, resisted providing information, documentation and testimony to the commission, reduces the number of police on the streets, lies about the safety of workers near "ground-zero", refuses to increase the number of officers on our borders, refuses to increase the number of shipping containers searched at our ports, and has generally been counter-productive in every way in our war on terrorism.

In light of his flip-flops, bad-decisions, general incompetence of himself and his lackeys, and refusal to correct his continual blunders, one would be hard pressed to find a President who could do more to help terrorism.