Cheney says a vote for Kerry will result in more terrorist strikes.

[Roel]

Perhaps a new low in fear mongering.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040907/ap_on_el_pr/cheney&cid=694&ncid=2043

[Frank Cunha]

coming from a guy that refuse to go in the service 5 times, can be deceiving

[CrewDust]

Props to Dick, I've been waiting for these types of allagations for awhile.
What dick really meant is that if you vote for Kerry and he wins and there is a terrorist strike the people who voted for Kerry are to blame for it.

[Dr. Wankler]

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

Damn. I thought for sure the Bush administration would totally shatter the record federal deficit, and here they learn, after all their hard work, that it's smaller than they expected.

Oh well. I'm sure the rich can afford to pay even fewer taxes next year. They'll put that record out of reach for good if they win in November.

[Barbara]

Perhaps a new low in fear mongering.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040907/ap_on_el_pr/cheney&cid=694&ncid=2043

I've already ranted at length about some of the stupid things one my co-workers told me the other night but I haven't mentioned this.

She deeply and sincerely believes that if Kerry becomes president there will be all manner of terrorist attacks. Really. You should have seen the horror on her face when she was saying it.

[TheSlipperyOne]

Disgusting but not unexpected. I'm almost surprised it took this long for someone high up in the administration to say it.

[Attacking Minded]

There's no doubt that the defeat of Bush would be seen as a victory for the terrorists.

But so what?

We have to do what is right. I personally think Bush is the better one for this fight but we should not let the terrorists' opinion affect how we vote. Taking a trip through Bizzaro Boston, imagine if Kerry were really better. Well the terrorists would give a cheer then Kerry would kick tail. The end result being more important.

Even if Kerry is the reactionary critic I think he is, Carter's presidency is a good example of how democracies need to try dumb ideas just so we are sure about the good ideas. Carter's presidency cheered the Russians but when Reagan came that didn’t really matter. In fact it sort of helped as the commies found out that our decline wouldn’t be linear and they were going to have to keep up.

So Kerry wouldn't be the end of the world. Just maybe a few cities. Then we would elect someone new and take the fight back at them.

[GringoTex]

There's no doubt that the defeat of Bush would be seen as a victory for the terrorists.

Al Qaeda's on record as saying that it hopes Bush wins because he's good for terrorism. His stupidity and bizarre throwing of resources at Iraq has made terrorism thrive, they say. So obviously a defeat of Kerry would be a victory for the terrorists.

[BlueMeanie]

Hmmm. Funny reverse logic by the Dick.

Terrorist attacks by foreigners on US soil during Democrat administrations: 1 (WTC bombing)
Terrorist attacks by foreigners on US soil during Republican administrations: 3 (two at the WTC, one at the Pentagon, and a fourth one deterred either by brave passengers or a US fighter jet...)

All this time, I've been worried that there would be more terrorist attacks before the election, and that America might be scared into re-electing Bush as a result. Saying there might be terrorist attacks in "the future" a given. And Cheney is a fear mongering piece of crap.

[yossarian]

There's no doubt that the defeat of Bush would be seen as a victory for the terrorists.


Speak for yourself. Many people have doubts.

[Dan Loney]

There's no doubt that the defeat of Bush would be seen as a victory for the terrorists.Yes, there is.

Carter's presidency cheered the RussiansNo, it didn't.

So Kerry wouldn't be the end of the world. Just maybe a few cities. I was trying to decide why this was particularly reprehensible, and then decided that it wasn't. Terrorism is a serious enough concern that if someone genuinely believes that Kerry would allow terrorist attacks that Bush would prevent, then voicing those concerns is legitimate.

Therefore, pointing out that on Bush's watch, three thousand people died because he had his head rammed up his ass, is also legitimate. So too is the fact that he's actively covered up for the perpetrators. And the fact that he lied about making Osama Bin Laden a priority. Therefore, Bush was negligent before the fact, and an accessory afterwards.

Hardball is fun!

[Revolt]

I've already ranted at length about some of the stupid things one my co-workers told me the other night but I haven't mentioned this.

She deeply and sincerely believes that if Kerry becomes president there will be all manner of terrorist attacks. Really. You should have seen the horror on her face when she was saying it.
You think the Reeps have test polling this before Cheney unleashed that load of cr@p?

[Barbara]

Hmmm. Funny reverse logic by the Dick.

Terrorist attacks by foreigners on US soil during Democrat administrations: 0
Terrorist attacks by foreigners on US soil during Republican administrations: 3 (two at the WTC, one at the Pentagon, and a fourth one deterred either by brave passengers or a US fighter jet...)

All this time, I've been worried that there would be more terrorist attacks before the election, and that America might be scared into re-electing Bush as a result. Saying there might be terrorist attacks in "the future" a given. And Cheney is a fear mongering piece of crap.



Um... wasn't Clinton president when WTC1 occurred?

[BlueMeanie]

Um... wasn't Clinton president when WTC1 occurred?Yeah, I went back and fixed that right after posting. You're too fast...

[Revolt]

Who is the PR bogeyman for wannabe terrorists?

Are you right wingers frigging kidding me?

[Barbara]

You're too fast...


Huh. I hardly ever hear that.

[Attacking Minded]

Al Qaeda's on record as saying that it hopes Bush wins because he's good for terrorism. His stupidity and bizarre throwing of resources at Iraq has made terrorism thrive, they say. So obviously a defeat of Kerry would be a victory for the terrorists.
Nice to see you paraphrasing AQ. To be accurate they've said that the US attacking an Arab country is what they wanted. If that were the end of it, if the US were like the Sovs, then they would be right. However they also know that they are being strangled by the fact that most Iraqis like the idea of an accountable government much more than a Taliban government. We know this because Al Zaquari has said so. So while paraphrasing AQ might work for one post, it would be much more convincing if it was clear you not only read but also understood what they've written.

[superdave]

Does anyone else suspect that this lil' nugget coming out the SAME DAY we went over 1000 deaths is NOT a coincidence?

Yes, I really, truly, believe that Cheney said this in hopes that the 1000 mark would get less coverage in the news.

[superdave]

Kerry's response should be,

"Well, that's an interesting thing the vice-president said. In response, all I can say is, I promise you that if I get a daily briefing about a terrorist organization being determined to strike inside the United States, I won't spend the next 3 weeks on vacation. And if my chief of staff tells me, 'America is under attack,' I won't sit around to find out how 'My Pet Goat ends."

[Claymore]

This is how it goes in the Bush/Cheney world - make a baseless , fear-mongering statement, then challenge your opponent to somehow disprove it.

Example:

"If Bush is re-elected, Satan himself will rise from hell and darkness will reign for 10,000 years"

Deny it.