On the campaign trail, Vice-President Dick Cheney said:

"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,"

I take Cheney to mean that "the wrong choice" on November 2 to be a vote for John Kerry.

John Edwards, Kerry's running mate replied to Cheney's remarks:

"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."

Less than a week before the third commemoration of the September 11, 2001 tragedy, there is nothing accidental about the timing of Cheney's words. He wants to remind Americans that what happened THEN could happen NOW if the nation is caught unaware and unprepared. In the view of Cheney, President Bush has been aggressive and proactive in pursuing terrorists and foiling their plans before they can launch them against the United States. Indeed, on September 4th, Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, said regarding possibly caputring Osama bin Laden, "If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught."

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?

Can't he/they come up with anything positive to run on?

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?

Cheney is making an assumption, and a wrong one at that. The purpose of his comments were to SCARE the American public into voting for himself and Bush. That type of activity should be criminalized. No person in the position of power that Dick is in should abuse it by blowing smoke up people's butts. Shame on those who he is fooling with this tactic.

Edwards called him to the mat on his comment. Cheney should know better, and therefore Edwards RIGHT, Cheney WRONG.

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?



Not just a "Democrat", but John Kerry. What Cheney was referencing was John Kerry's seeming desire to go back to 10Sept2001 when the policy was "measured response" and was reactive in nature. I heard Kerry recently assure the people on a campaign stop that "if America is attacked, I will hit back hard!". With all due respect to Kerry (take that how you will), we already have been attacked. Bush wants to stop them from attacking us and that means taking the fight to them. Not sitting around waiting until they attack us again.

I don't think the terrorists care who's in charge, they'd love to launch another 9/11 on us if they could. Bush's policy of interdicting them is interfering with their plans I think and I think that's evidenced by what we're seeing in Iraq with the terrorist insurgency. Some of it is domestic to be sure, but there are al Qaeda ties to it as well. Since Kerry people want to try to turn Iraq into another Vietnam, I'll draw the parallel between Iraq and the Tet Offensive. They know they can't win militarily, so they're trying to win politically. They might view a Bush defeat as a sign they are winning, but I don't think that is their purpose.

Looks like some people want it both ways. I thought people like John Kerry were supposed to be "appeasers" of terrorists. Surely, were there an "appeaser" in the White House, another attack would be much less likely.

In fact, I don't think the charge is true at all. I believe that were Kerry in the White House that he might actually be putting our resources into combatting terrorism - through blunt force where necessary, but also through financial and diplomatic means. I also doubt that he'd be waging unrelated, costly, and distracting warfare in states like Iraq.

While it is not true that Kerry or the Democrats are appeasers, it is quite true that the Bush administration - and many Republicans - are inciters. I firmly believe that if a Bush hadn't been in the White House in 2001, there would have been no September 11 attack. If we want further attacks on US soil, the best way to guarantee that is to re-elect George W Bush.

Bush is doing to the world exactly what he has been doing to the US - dividing it. And those standing against the US are increasing daily - thanks to our current administration. And when it comes to terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, they couldn't have asked for a better recruitment poster boy than Dubya.

Cheney is quite wrong - and Edwards is partially wrong. It isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, true. But it is a Bush administration/neoconservative issue - and Edwards leaves that out. Americans may not know what this administration is up to, but al-Qaeda sure as hell does. In terms of terrorism, Bush is like a red flag to a bull: the greatest danger that we'll get hit again - and in a way that will be devastating - is in failing to effect our own regime change.

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?

Its an obvious scare tactic from Cheney and just more evidence they are using the war on terrorism for political gain. Anybody that is elected President regardless of politcal affiliation will understand that protecting the American people is always a top priority. Its plain ignorant and stupid for anybody to suggest we are safer based on political affiliation.

This coming from a man that said he had "other priorites" when had a choice to fight in a war. I hope the public don't fall for this (they will of course).

I think Cheney's words are a gamble on the part of the administation. There are probably enough soft targets in the U.S., especially chemical plants, that another attack could come before the election. Talk of terrorist attacking the Olympics, or either party convention was merely hype. Al Queda probably won't go after targets with a high degree of security.

Let's hope that doesn't happen, but after Cheney's charge today it will be much harder for the administration to spin in a positive manner.

I somewhat agree with Wertz, that 9/11 may not have happened with Gore in office. Perhaps Gore, a man with a bit more intellectual curiosity, would have paid attention to some of the clues Bush missed. Still we can't second guess history from "ifs."

I was reading this book called "Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy, Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden" by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Frankly, I had to stop because the overload of information was too much to bear. It's not an easy book to read--there's no dramatic structure, it jumps back and forth in time a lot, and it takes a lot to understand the inferences the authors make. Or maybe I just lost interest.

Anyway, I know it's rather "conspiracy theorist", but this website still details quite a bit of what Brisard and Dasquie document. Obviously, this timeline continues well from the first President Bush's term through Clinton's and concludes with our current President in office. Whether or not there is any truth would probably take a lot more research. From what I have read, most of this is very accurate.

A Timeline of Oil and Violence.

John O'Neill (not the one associated with the Swift Boat Vets) was heavily involved in the Taliban/Al-qaeda investigation. His story is very depressing, considering he lost his life in the 9/11 attacks of the WTC.

Is a vote for Kerry a vote for terrorism? No, because terrorists are generally motivated by personal reasons. You appease one group, another group gets angry. We saw this with Palestine and Israel recently. The Taliban's religious views heavily affected their decision-making. A war against terrorism will ultimately fail because no one can satisfy everyone. Both campaigns are using fear tactics. I'd prefer hearing more on domestic issues (the Bush campaign touched on this during Bush's RNC speech).

This is really quite ridiculous to speculate on.

Safety is a partisan issue now?

The public has made it pretty clear they care about safety, and they have had to put up with far too much nonsense in safetys name. It doesn't matter who is president, if a whack job wants to blow up something, he or she will, somehow.

This is a smokescreen, to hide the fact that the national debt has so far eclipsed all previous records, and this administration is leading the country to financial ruin through irresponsible policys. We currently occupy a country that does not want us there in a conflict that we cannot afford, once again.

Forget Ralph Nader!
Where is Ross Perot???

Nighttimer, nice sig, BTW. and what is a potus?

Good catch, nighttimer!

The War on Terror I supported. The War in Iraq was ill-advised. We should have stayed the course in Afghanistan and on the border of Pakistan.

The loss of life might have been greater in those tribal areas but only now are we seeing fruits in our efforts to involve Pakistan in rounding up Al Qaeda.

I like Bush better than Cheney. I remember Cheney's hand in base closing Defense cuts and his use of petty politics in choosing to close a Texas Air Force Base in Fort Worth (when there were some in cities that had far less strategic value). He did it just to 'get back' at Former Speaker Jim Wright who called Fort Worth his home.

Cheney can say some of the meanest things I've ever heard without raising his voice. It looked on newsclips as if Lynn Cheney had that "Oh no, here we go again" look on her face.

Really Aquilla....

So Iraq is part of the war on terror because it has terrorist ties, I'm afraid that the 9/11 commission disagrees with you. Furthermore, since we are talking about the war on terror here, whatever happened to Bin Laden, you know the guy that was responsible for 9/11 in the first place? Why is his name a dirty word for the Bush administration now and "not a priority"?


Secondly, if Bush's policy of "interdicting them" is so effective, then why have there been more terrorist incidents in 2004 than in 2003 according to the State Department? Does that translate to being effective in your mind, because it sure doesn't in mine.

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?
Edwards is right, it doesn't matter if there is a Democrat or a Republican in office - what does matter is the tactics they employ. There are probably quite a few threads discussing this, but I think we should start to correct this problem by actually fighting the right fights, you know against Al Qaeda and not dictatorships that have nothing to do with terrorism.

I think that a Kerry administration will be more efficient at controlling terrorism than the Bush administration in a second term.

This is simple: A Kerry administration will be motivated to prove its ability to handle this and several other major problems facing the nation.

A second Bush administration will be motivated to maintain Republican control of all three branches of the federal government and to groom its next set of politicians in the effort to maintain power.

It's a matter of focus and motivation. We will be safer with Kerry than with Bush.

We won't be immune from attack, that's for sure. And if another attack happens on a Kerry watch, then that's it for Democrats. Might as well disband the Democrat party at that point and submit to continual Republican control.

Aha! More motivation and focus for the Demos.

The idea that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism is too rediculous to debate. It's just another form of twisting that Republicans are so good at, and that twisting (although Cheney never twisted, according to his wife) is absolutely not what this country needs.

I couldn't agree more. I cannot imagine anyone (Republican or Democrat) defending this kind of foolish talk from the VP. My advice to the VP, stick to the policies. The President needs to rein him in because Cheney has a history of making odd and untrue remarks. Pack this statement in with the rest of them.

Careful, CJ, you are in disagreement with your candidate, at least what he used to say, not sure what he's saying now. But, back on 15Sept2002, John Kerry said this on Face the Nation....



On 14Dec2001, Kerry said this to Larry King.....



During the Primary debates, Kerry said this in Columbia, South Carolina.....



Not to worry though, CJ, just because Kerry disagreed with you then doesn't mean he does now. Now, he will wait for us to get attacked first. From Kerry's DNC Convention speech....



We have been attacked, but this policy as spelled out by Kerry is a 10Sept policy, it was called "measured response" and basically involved using a million dollar missle to blow up a ten dollar tent. That is a receipe for disaster. And that is what VP Cheney is talking about.

That has got to be the most partisan and ridiculous interpretation of those words that I can think of Aquilla. I think the words mean exactly what they read, if the US were attacked he would respond appropriately. Trying to read in anything about prevention here is just partisan spin and you know that as well as I do, but you also don't care apparently.

I think that George Bush would do exactly the same thing if the nation were attacked again, just the same as he did after 9/11. In fact I think that you could put almost any American in the Oval Office and they would attack if attacked first.

The quote you provided therefore doesn't mean anything near what you equated it to.

What is with the double standards around here?

What is the difference between what Cheney said and what Kerry said on May 28th?



Kerry: Bush 'made America less safe'

If saying that Bush's policies have made America less safe is a valid argument, then the GOP's assessment that Kerry's proposed policy of "striking back hard" (rather than pre-empting attacks) makes America less safe is also a valid argument. These double standards are making me ill .

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?
Terrorists don't care. They hate America, regardless of its current (or past, or future) President.



I guess our birthday boy Wertz also feels that the first World Trade Center bombing would have ONLY occurred if Bill Clinton were President. Or the Khobar Towers would have only been bombed with Clinton in the White House? or the USS Cole, or the African embassies? If any line of reasoning is ridiculous, it is that one.

When Osama bin Laden said in 1997:


He meant Bill Clinton? I think not.

or in 1998:

He must have meant his battle against the future President, George W. Bush, right?

Terrorists don't care who is President. They hate America. They hate our religious freedom, they hate our freedom of the Press. They hate the freedoms our women have. They hate our "decadent" lifestyle.

Who is President does not change their hatred. However, the methods employed by the President in combatting terrorism will have an effect on the success that the terrorists have.

It is legitimate to discuss the proposed (or current) strategies that each candidate will use and the effect that such policies will have on the success that terrorists have.

George Bush did attack after 9/11, and he hasn't stopped attacking since. The war on terror continues, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in other ways around the world. Bush wasn't satisified with blowing up a few tents and destroying an asprin factory. He's taking the fight to the terrorists before they can bring it to the US. John Kerry's policy as spelled out in that speech is precisely what it says. "Respond to attacks", and that is a "measured response" policy.

"Respond to attacks", and that is a "measured response" policy.

I agree. No where in Kerry's speech did he mention anything about attacking threats either foreign or domestic. Kerry pretty much outlined that he will respond to attacks. So will he attack threats as his job outlines entails?

Constitution Article II - Section 1 - Clause 8:

Once again the mistake of intellectual laziness at play here. Just because someone doesn't lay out their entire policy on everything in every speech does not mean they don't have a policy.

A few quick key strokes over to JohnKerry.com and you'll find Kerry's complete stance if you actually care to read it instead of parrot talking points from the spin machine. A quick high level summary from Kerry's page on National Security:


I don't see anything in there about sitting around and waiting to get attacked, do you? I didn't think so.


Care to provide a link to this "measured response" policy Aquilla? If we are to discuss it I'd prefer to examine it in the original non-spun form.

Quite frankly, I don't see anything in there at all, other than a bunch of platitudes and "nuance". Nothing concrete there at all. "We're going to fight against terrorists!" No kidding?



From the UK....



From Germany....



From the Libertarian Party.....



Understand the term now?

A measured response is proportional to the threat or to the attack--is there something wrong with that? It seems to me that history points out many instances where more brutal responses led to more atrocities with the English in Ireland, in the Middle East, and so forth. Isn't the reason that a country responds so that the perpetrator does not do it again, not to foster enduring hatred and a desire to strike back in the cruellest way possible?

Kerry has maintained that war is not supposed to be the first response, but that it is the course to be taken only when necessary. That tells me that as a leader, Kerry desires for cooler heads to prevail in times of crisis. No cowboy phrases like "this is a crusade" or "dead or alive"* to ratchet up the frenzy and give the enemy material to whip up its own groups. In short, Kerry would be more statesmanlike in the Presidency, and not lose sight of the fact that there are allies to be made and strategies to be chosen if the blood lust isn't clouding our sight.

Edited

*Speaking of "dead or alive," why isn't finding Osama bin Laden and bringing him to justice part of Bush's rhetoric any more? Did Osama retire?

Is the postulation being bandied about here that under a Kerry presidency the US would stop looking for Al-Qaeda and give up on the war against global terrorism? If so, I have to say your personal political ideologies seem to be clouding your judgment. No serious person would claim that any POTUS would have responded to 9/11 in a markedly different way than Bush did, in terms of going after Al-Qaeda and invading Afghanistan. The divergence of opinion, of course, is on Iraq, although how any informed poster on this board could still be inferring a relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda is totally beyond me, and seems obtuse in the extreme.

And incidentally, what happened to the hunt for Bin Laden? Now that we're completely overinvested in a military boondoggle that's draining our resources to go after the real threats. Ohhh, that's right - Bush doesn't care anymore.

And I never suggested in my post that it was a comprehensive policy, in fact I was very careful to use the specific words "quick high level summary", indicating that it was in fact a quick high level summary and not an extensive policy. However, it still proves the point I was responding to in yehoshua's post.


I understand what a measured response is, I was asking you to provide evidence that Kerry's policies are in fact a measured response and how that is a bad thing.

And on preview, what Paladin Elspeth said:

Ok, time to put this "measured response" nonsense to bed. Here is what he has said about "pre-emption". This is from a February speech this year and is probably his most detailed in how he would approach the war on terror. (link)


Now, if he was simply going to wait for an attack to respond, what's the point of focusing on intelligence? If he was 100% committed to "measured response", why insist on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.? Sounds to me like Kerry understands the War on Terror a heckuva lot better than the present administration. Maybe he reads more /shrug

Doc

I noticed something about Bin Laden's words to Jon Miller:

"Our battle against the Americans is far greater than our battle was against the Russians. We anticipate a black future for America. Instead of remaining United States, it shall end up separated states and shall have to carry the bodies of its sons back to America."

The phrase "back to America" was in response to threatened U.S. attacks on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The current administration had threatened Bin Laden BEFORE 9-11. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been after him but press releases from the administration specifically mentioned "carpet bombing" in Afghanistan 5 or 6 months BEFORE 9-11.

I truly believe the influx of terrorists INTO Iraq came AFTER the "Mission Accomplished" statement. Bin Laden and other Jihadists believed in their ability to keep the body count growing in the scenario created by "liberating" Iraq. They KNEW we would also have to occupy it and in that occupation we would be more vulnerable.

In a speech on 15Dec2003, in Des Moines, Iowa, John Edwards in a speech titled Strategy of Prevention, Not Preemption said the following.....



This speech is on the Kerry website, so I assume it is embraced by John Kerry? At least as of this moment it is, might change tomorrow.

I may just be a little slow today Aquilla, but I'm not sure how that post in any way was a rebuttal to Doc's post. The quote "That is why to win the global war on terror, America does not need a new doctrine of pre-emption; we need a new strategy of prevention. " basically sums up exactly what he was saying - prevention = intelligence.

The key phrase in that speech, CJ, was "not pre-emption". In this context to me at least, that rules out military force before the act against us. The term "prevention" implies to me that first we have to find out about it and then we take steps to prevent it. That is fine, if we know about an impending attack, but what about the ones we don't know about? And this is the difference between a policy of "pre-emption" and "prevention".

I'll draw a hypothetical example. Let's say we know about the existance of an al Qaeda cell in Yemen, but we don't know what their specific plans are. Do we take action to take them out even though we have no specific information that they are going to attack us, or do we wait until we find out they are planning another Cole attack? Under a Bush policy, we take them out, but I'm not so sure we would under a Kerry policy. Afterall, if we don't know what they were planning, what did we prevent?

I'm with CJ here. Totally at a loss for how this addresses or otherwise disproves the cases already made here regarding Cheney's statement. If anything, it's a self-defeating point, since "prevention" and "preemption" are nearly synomous; the distinction being made by Edwards here is obviously a dig at the Bush vis-a-vis the Iraq debacle. Not to mention the fact that it was Edward's statement and not Kerry's. One, two, three, streeeetch!

Tell that to Dick Cheney. He maybe the only conservative in the country to disagree with you. You just pretty much justified why his remarks was out-of-line and ignorant.

And NO, Cheney was not talking about policy differences between Bush and Kerry. He was VERY CLEAR on his point: scare the daylights out of the American people into electing Bush. Thats the POINT and the MESSAGE he was trying to give .The strategy is so obvious a 5 year old child can see it.

Errrr.... With all due respect, Countrockula, John Edwards is running for the same office that Dick Cheney is. That speech is on the Kerry website. It seems to me that qualifies it as an official position of the Kerry campaign everybit as much as anything Cheney says is part of the Bush campaign.

Exactly. We have to KNOW about threats before we address them. We don't go flailing irresponsibly around, wasting billions of dollars and over 1,000 soldiers' lives in an effort to "preempt" something that wasn't there. What about the ones we don't know about? Well, I'd say if we don't have any idea a threat exists, we don't do anything about it since we don't know about it.



If we know an Al-Qaeda cell exists in Yemen, we go after it. Are you really suggesting that any post-9/11 administration wouldn't? This line of reasoning is ridiculously partisan and is founded in personal contempt for Kerry - not the facts, not what Kerry's stated, and not what common sense suggests.

Once again the mistake of intellectual laziness at play here. Just because someone doesn't lay out their entire policy on everything in every speech does not mean they don't have a policy.

Kerry has yet to say word one on any of his policy in any of his speech. People may not lay out their entire policy on everything in every speech, but they should give a good idea layed out in at least one speech. And the idea I get from Kerry's speech, is 'don't act unless ye been acted upon.' Unfortunately that is not a good enough policy.

If Kerry would have spent more time laying out his policy instead of batting Bush around (W = Wrong) then he would have had a bounce after the DNC.

Just cause it is on his web site doesn't mean Kerry supports it. Kerry is always for something before he is against.

And Bush & Cheney are of one mind on gay marriage...right? Edwards speech is consistent with Kerry's position. As the Count notes, pre-emption and prevention are pretty close bedfellows and it is indeed a stretch if you conclude from Edwards remarks that we will wait for an attack before acting against another organization or country that poses a real threat.

Doc

I suggest that you scroll back, Doc, and take a look again at the title of that speech. Strategy of Prevention, Not Preemption . It seems to me that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is making a differentiation between the two terms. Perhaps that is causing confusion on my part? It wouldn't be the first time Kerry's stance confused me....

yehoshua, This comment hardly even warrants a response but... I will suggest that if that is the way you actually feel that you check out Vote-Smart.org and look up some of Kerry's speeches and read them. Kerry has discussed his policy on terrorism, national security and homeland security extensively. Even a quick search here on AD would turn up plenty of quotes for you.

...look up some of Kerry's speeches and read them. Kerry has discussed his policy on terrorism, national security and homeland security extensively. Even a quick search here on AD would turn up plenty of quotes for you.

Okay, did it, read Kerry's most recent speech and I have to say, all I read was "W=wrong" and "we need to change (blank)" and "w=wrong cause he won't change (blank)."

You know what Kerry's speech sound like to me, did you see the movie "South Park." The kids during their own political rally say, "they are going to kill them and we think that sucks. So lets crank call a whole bunch of police officers, viva la resistance."

It makes no sense. Kerry makes no sense, he doesn't have a plan, he has a bunch of people using polling data to define his policy. His VP likes to run around saying, "you know, Kerry has a plan for that." Ask Edawrds anything: "why is my hair brown?" "John and I have a plan for that." These policy may statisfy some people that Kerry would be tough on terrorism, but there is no sell with me.

What sold me was Bush's speech, his emotion when talking about the fallen soldiers and not to let their deaths be meaningless. Now that is a true vote for anti-terrorism. And anyone against terrorism should vote Bush.

From Aquilla
I did Aquilla. I also did the dastardly deed of reading the whole speech. As I indicated in another thread, Kerry's advocacy (and this speech is consistent with it) on pre-emption is a departure from the PNAC vision that Bush's administration has played out.

Here's a recent speech that drives that point home (Edwards, August 30, 2004)(link)


I will agree with you that the title of Edwards speech is a little misleading. And Kerry's positions can be confusing if you prefer soundbytes to substance. Context is tricky that way.

From yehoshua

Nice generalizations there. Esp based on one speech. I realize you have no interest in legitimately reviewing Kerry's positions on any topic much less trying to understand them. That's fine and you're entitled to vote for Bush. But don't reduce this to South Park references. Its childish and does nothing to contribute to the debate. Then again, maybe you're voting for Bush based on previous speeches where he used words like "humble foreign policy" and avoidance of "nation-building"

Doc

Here's an excerpt from Kerry's most recent speech.



That's just a small snippet. It's too bad you only caught the "W" joke and in a blind fury signed off to be righteously indignant here. And it's also too bad that people on this debate site work hard to provide links for you to ignore as it suits you.



Ohh, so it wasn't Bush's nuanced positions, or hard facts that sold you on Bush's superior agenda, it was...his emotion. Yeah, that's a well-defended position, there.



So, as pertains to the debate topic, a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism because you like Bush because he sounded good in his speech.

I guess I am pro-terrorism since there's no chance in hell I'll be voting for Bush
One would think that you'd want some substance to be "sold" other than pure emotion when talking about fallen soldiers. By the way, if Bush cares so much about fallen soldiers why hasn't he visited a single soldier's funeral? All his predecessors did ut, is he too busy?
In response to the topic's thread - I believe that Bush's policy generates more terror around the Globe (so many like to point out that there has been no major attack on U.S. soil in three years, like this means anything... we haven't had an attack on U.S. soil since first World Trade Center bombing, when country was actively involved not in War on Terror but in research of Pres. Clinton's love endeavours). Cheney's remark has only one goal - scare the hell out of people into voting for Bush. The whole tactic is not much different from the infamous Goering remark.

Excellent topic NT.



Here’s another one from Kerry’s acceptance speech:



My preference since the start of the war on terrorism, more effective and a heck of a lot cheaper.

Can a Bush supporter point me to a specific plan from the incumbent? I’ve scoured his web site and can only place my finger on the same sounds bites that I’ve heard for over a year: 50 million liberated, blah, blah, stay the course, yada, yada, yada.

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?

As mentioned, the WoT and protecting America is a non-partisian issue, both sides will do their best and the only real difference I see is the approach.

Months after the attack when it became obvious how it affected the economy, I remember thinking about the genius of Bin Ladens plan. He sacrificed less than 20 of his followers yet he caused more economic disruption than any single event with the possible exception of the stock market crash.

It’s easy to speculate but I wonder if Bin Laden knew that the Republicans tended to be hawkish, with the Bush family as king of the roost and Cheny in cahoots with the war machine, and if he attacked under a Republican administration they would more than likely bring a full scale war to the Middle East and his ranks would multiply.

Here’s another one from Kerry’s acceptance speech: "We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations." My preference since the start of the war on terrorism, more effective and a heck of a lot cheaper.


You hold him to that? I mean look at is record on military spending. He has voted to cut every spending bill that has crossed his desk, and has voted against every increased spending bill for military services. It will cost more for special operations. Special Opts requires state of the art equipment, high tech intelligents. This isn't a cheaper group because its smaller.

Can a Bush supporter point me to a specific plan from the incumbent?

Stay the course.

Given the way the Army wastes money (a good example would be a recent cancellation of Comanche helicopter program - after approximately $8,000,000,000.00 (8 billion) and more than twenty years of development already spent) maybe it's not such a bad idea to curtail Army's spending.

Quoting form here:

The majority of funds does not go to pockets of men and women in uniform - it goes to fund programs such as Comanche or Crusader, and then, after 8 billion and 21 years of development, it is scrapped. Why? Because they know that every time they ask, they get what they want - and not a person dares to challenge this sacred cow of government spending.

If you would like to further to discuss my beliefs - and their foundation - I am more than willing to do so. But, in this thread, to explore them further would be to depart from the topic at hand. Feel free to start a new thread - or send me a PM. Oh - and thanks for the birthday greeting.

That's fine and dandy, except, um.... staying the course isn't working. This administration has shown a complete disdain for the religious ideologies of Iraqi citizens. The terrorists hate us because their religion hates us. Does our concept of religious freedom end at our borders?

Now of course this does not mean I think they should be allowed to murder innocent people. However, our entire country's legal system is founded upon whether someone has committed an act of crime rather than someone possibly could commit a crime. From reading a lot of the comments in here, one might believe that terrorism is a new thing that began with 9/11. This is entirely wrong.

Our country has constantly battled terrorism but never with such bravada. It's been a behind-the-scenes, lay-low operation. Gathering intelligence, connecting the dots, infiltrating terrorist organizations, etc. Frankly, I think the all-out war declared against terrorism will hinder our efforts rather than aid them. Agents will have a much harder time gaining information (and this is where Kerry comes in) without multinational support.

Fact: the French intelligence services handed over vital information on Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, which explained his connections with al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. FBI Agent Colleen Rowley pressed headquarters to investigate Moussaoui and his ties to terrorist organizations (source: Time.com). Now I hear all about how much we hate the French. But they did seem to want to help us. We just didn't do anything about it.

Fighting a war on terrorism is much more than just unity between our intelligence services. We need to have access to intelligence and research from other nations as well. President Bush's go-it-alone attitude has spurned many countries, including France. Of course, this is not all Bush's fault, but they require a scapegoat and POTUS seems to be the best target. Maybe a change would repair some damage. A recent poll conducted throughout many nations proved Kerry was far more popular--even in England (source: Financial Times).

Lastly, Vice President Dick Cheney recently stated, "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." (source: CBS News)

Frankly, this is absurd--the 9/11 attack happened on Bush's watch. How can they even make this claim?

*edited to add a URL and adjust formatting problems

AMLord, since no one answered your post, I'll take a shot.

I really can't believe you don't see the difference between those two quotes above. Remember the top one is from Kerry, and the bottom from Cheney.

Kerry is saying that he believes Bush is making our country less safe.

Cheney is saying that he believes that if Kerry is elected, then we're going to be attacked by terrorists in a "devestating" way.

One is a clear criticism of what the administration's policies have been. Here's the full version of what Kerry said:



Kerry clearly states that he believes the policies of the adminstration endanger the country. He also explains WHY he believes this. I think this paragraph makes sense, let me know if you disagree. Regardless, Kerry is clearly not using his words to inspire fear in the listener. If you disagree with this, please point out the specific statement you believe does this. Simply saying the adminstration is making the country "less safe" I cannot believe would inspire fear in anyone.

Cheney, on the other hand, has made a statement which clearly was written to inspire fear. Cheney is saying in absolute terms that if Kerry were elected, the country is going to be attacked by terrorists, and it's going to be a disaster. And I'll be damned if I can find a link to Cheney's full speach on-line, but at least in the snippets I have been able to find, the vice president provides ABSOLUTELY NO credible argument to back this statement up. What's being said here with no subtlety is that if America elects a democratic president(and solely on this basis) this country is going to suffer, not a vague unclearly defined suffering, but he is making what appears to be a prophetic statement that America will be "hit" by a "devestating" attack that will hurt this country.

Seriously, you can't see the difference?

That's fine and dandy, except, um.... staying the course isn't working.

It isn't working in your eyes, in 52 % of the rest of America think that staying the course is working.

This administration has shown a complete disdain for the religious ideologies of Iraqi citizens. The terrorists hate us because their religion hates us. Does our concept of religious freedom end at our borders?

In what way has the Bush administration shown disdain for the Muslim religious ideologies?

Now of course this does not mean I think they should be allowed to murder innocent people. However, our entire country's legal system is founded upon whether someone has committed an act of crime rather than someone possibly could commit a crime. From reading a lot of the comments in here, one might believe that terrorism is a new thing that began with 9/11. This is entirely wrong.

You are right. The war on terrorism started along time ago when people began using terror as a last resort to get what they want. Sounds like a two year old throwing a trantrum.

Our country has constantly battled terrorism but never with such bravado. It's been a behind-the-scenes, lay-low operation. Gathering intelligence, connecting the dots, infiltrating terrorist organizations, etc. Frankly, I think the all-out war declared against terrorism will hinder our efforts rather than aid them. Agents will have a much harder time gaining information (and this is where Kerry comes in) without multinational support.

Multi-national wha? Oh yeah cause France and Germany weren't in on it. But what about the other 40 that wanted to go?

Fact: the French intelligence services handed over vital information on Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, which explained his connections with al-Qaeda and Afghanistan. FBI Agent Colleen Rowley pressed headquarters to investigate Moussaoui and his ties to terrorist organizations (source: Time.com). Now I hear all about how much we hate the French. But they did seem to want to help us. We just didn't do anything about it.

To avoid us invading Iraq and finding about France breaking the UN resolution.

Fighting a war on terrorism is much more than just unity between our intelligence services. We need to have access to intelligence and research from other nations as well. President Bush's go-it-alone attitude has spurned many countries, including France. Of course, this is not all Bush's fault, but they require a scapegoat and POTUS seems to be the best target. Maybe a change would repair some damage. A recent poll conducted throughout many nations proved Kerry was far more popular--even in England (source: Financial Times).

France, Germany, and Russia still trades intelligents with US.

Lastly, Vice President Dick Cheney recently stated, "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." (source: CBS News) Frankly, this is absurd--the 9/11 attack happened on Bush's watch. How can they even make this claim?

Because the terrorist see Bush as strong and Kerry as week.

How do you know that, yehoshua? Was there a poll taken?

I suspect that al Qaeda's recruitment numbers will drop somewhat if Bush doesn't get a second term. But I have about as much documentation to back that assumption up as you have for your assumption.

Please bear in mind that it is the Bush family with the ties to the Saudis, and that a number of Saudis (not Iraqis) were responsible for the plane hijackings on September 11, 2001. Also, it wasn't John Kerry who authorized these Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to be transported out of the United States when Americans were unable to take to the air.

Tell me, are there more terrorists or fewer terrorists in Iraq now that it has been "liberated"?

On whose watch did Osama bin Laden manage to escape American forces? And who said in so many words that capturing Osama bin Laden didn't matter when asked by the press after the invasion of Iraq?

Please bear in mind that it is the Bush family with the ties to the Saudis, and that a number of Saudis (not Iraqis) were responsible for the plane hijackings on September 11, 2001.

I have ties to Texas, does that mean I have ties to the Bush family?

Also, it wasn't John Kerry who authorized these Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, to be transported out of the United States when Americans were unable to take to the air.

Again by your logic, we should punish not only the murders but the murders family? Why?

Tell me, are there more terrorists or fewer terrorists in Iraq now that it has been "liberated"?

More because the Saddam put the word out "come to Iraq and kill the Americans." And like magic the flocked. But then again if they are more terrorist in Iraq, then there are fewer terrorist in the rest of the world, thus success. A concentration of terrorist ready and willing to battle.

On whose watch did Osama bin Laden manage to escape American forces?

Clinton.

Ah, too much F9/11 eh?

First...people on these boards hate generaliztions. "Not all Arabs are terrorists...and not all terrorists are Arabs." Yes, i sort of remember having to repeat that line a number of times because people think one is making generalizations. What you just did...is make a generalization. Just because the people who hijacked the planes were Saudi...doesnt mean that Saudi Arabia is at fault. I can go on with this...but it is simple...Saudi Arabia is not the culprit...Islamo-Fascists are.

As to your next point.

9/11 Commission Report





More terrorists...and more dead terrorists who cannot harm Americans. America is safer. In all honesty, i would rather the terrorists be in Iraq...where the military is able to engage them...then on our own streets.



Who said Usama escaped? Latest reports are claiming that Pakistan has been hot on his trail for the past two months and are rather close to catching him. Furthermore, so what if UBL is captured? Do you honestly believe it would have any actual effect on the WoT? All it would be is a morale booster for the USA. Terrorists wont suddenly drop their weapons and bombs and go home. Things WONT CHANGE. Also...as to Bush's quote. It is probably taken out of context as most things are. I want to see the transcript of the interview of news conference or whatever before i make a judgment.