TPS Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 For the past 6 months security analysts and administration officials have said another terrorist incident is inevitable, now Dick says "only if Kerry is elected." Dick knows no low. Terrorism and election By the way, while the linked article continues on a second page, I think it should've ended on the first page--with Edward's one-word quote...
VABills Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 For the past 6 months security analysts and administration officials have said another terrorist incident is inevitable, now Dick says "only if Kerry is elected."Dick knows no low. Terrorism and election By the way, while the linked article continues on a second page, I think it should've ended on the first page--with Edward's one-word quote... 21544[/snapback] I don't believe this is a new thought. We have one of our own here who's job seems to be looking and reviewing policies and plans the candidates may put forth as far as threat reduction goes. Seems like he has warned us quite a bit that Kerry is clueless as well as his people on the subject of homeland security. This member has mentioned that if Kerry's policies are put in to place we should all kiss our ass good bye.
RkFast Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Yes...what a "Dick". Of course, when FrankenKerry says all Republican's are full of stevestojan, its OK.
stuckincincy Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 For the past 6 months security analysts and administration officials have said another terrorist incident is inevitable, now Dick says "only if Kerry is elected."Dick knows no low. Terrorism and election By the way, while the linked article continues on a second page, I think it should've ended on the first page--with Edward's one-word quote... 21544[/snapback] How would you compare things that Cheney has said to words that have come out of the mouthes of H. Dean and A. Gore?
BRH Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Okay... what happened the last time we elected George Bush and Dick Cheney? Seems to me we got hit. Am I wrong?
RkFast Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Last night, Al Gore basically comapred the President to an Islamic Fascist terrorist. But that's OK.
Bill from NYC Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Last night, Al Gore basically comapred the President to an Islamic Fascist terrorist. But that's OK. 21639[/snapback] Please refresh my memory. Just before the 2000 election, didn't Gore accuse all republicans of racism?
RkFast Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Not sure...but Randi Rhodes did it last night, baiting Senator Graham who quickly rebuffed her. But hey...RUSH LIMBAUGH is the !@#$.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Please refresh my memory.Just before the 2000 election, didn't Gore accuse all republicans of racism? 21647[/snapback] Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it!
Bill from NYC Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Hey, if the shoe fits, wear it! 21714[/snapback] Nice to hear from you today EIL.
IDBillzFan Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Okay... what happened the last time we elected George Bush and Dick Cheney? Seems to me we got hit. Am I wrong? 21635[/snapback] This statement is wrong in so many ways I can't believe you haven't self-deleted it yet. I guess Clinton was responsible for the dot-com boom since it happened on his watch. Or was he responsible for its bust? I always get those two mixed up.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 Nice to hear from you today EIL. 21726[/snapback] Anytime! Hope all is fine? Think there will be rain at the game on Sunday?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 This statement is wrong in so many ways I can't believe you haven't self-deleted it yet. I guess Clinton was responsible for the dot-com boom since it happened on his watch. Or was he responsible for its bust? I always get those two mixed up. 21729[/snapback] When was the internet opened up to commercial interests... At who's prodding? Must have been those techno-savvy Republicans!
TPS Posted September 8, 2004 Author Posted September 8, 2004 How would you compare things that Cheney has said to words that have come out of the mouthes of H. Dean and A. Gore? 21628[/snapback] The point is that the statement is completely hypocritical. Cheney (or at least people in the administration) can't say on the one hand that another act is inevitable, and on the other another say an attack will only occur if Kerry is elected. Which is it? Is it inevitable or is it dependent on Kerry's election? Will he guarantee no new strikes then if they are re-elected? And if there is another act on our soil, will they resign?
stuckincincy Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 The point is that the statement is completely hypocritical. Cheney (or at least people in the administration) can't say on the one hand that another act is inevitable, and on the other another say an attack will only occur if Kerry is elected. Which is it? Is it inevitable or is it dependent on Kerry's election? Will he guarantee no new strikes then if they are re-elected? And if there is another act on our soil, will they resign? 21835[/snapback] In reading the link (BTW, IHT is owned by the NY Times), Cheney said that No, it's not. Cheney says that an attack with Kerry in office would be more severe. Many assumed after 9-11, attacks would be soon forthcoming. But they didn't - yet. If I understand Kerry, he wants to allow for some sort of negotiation. But if that takes place, would not one expect a marshaling of forces in the lull? Do you honestly feel that our enemies will be wanting to play nice if Kerry is elected? They seem to hate Bush as much as some of our citizens do. In 1934, the French stood by while Hitler re-occupied the Rheinland, despite having vastly superior forces. They talked. Had the French acted, war in Europe may well have been avoided... As an aside, why did you feel the need to type in your thread title with an obvious, directed obscenity?
Alaska Darin Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 In 1934, the French stood by while Hitler re-occupied the Rheinland, despite having vastly superior forces. They talked. Had the French acted, war in Europe may well have been avoided... 22327[/snapback] Probably didn't want to get their shiny new rifles dirty.
MichFan Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 From the details that Kerry/Edwards have provided about their plans for fighting the war on terror (e.g., nothing), what Cheney said is technically correct. Cheney still should not have said what he said. He gave the media a soundbite to run with. He reinforced the negative image of him. Kerry/Edwards could have made some serious political hay out of this if they weren't so inept. Funny how they come out of an episode like this looking worse because the best they can do is throw Johnny Boy Edwards in front of the camera offering an acting performance that couldn't get him an appearance in a Breck shampoo commercial. Bush needs to have a little talk with Cheney about his loose lips here lately.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 n reading the link (BTW, IHT is owned by the NY Times), Cheney said that No, it's not. Cheney says that an attack with Kerry in office would be more severe. Many assumed after 9-11, attacks would be soon forthcoming. But they didn't - yet. If I understand Kerry, he wants to allow for some sort of negotiation. But if that takes place, would not one expect a marshaling of forces in the lull? Do you honestly feel that our enemies will be wanting to play nice if Kerry is elected? The seem to hate Bush as much as some of our citizens do. In 1934, the French stood by while Hitler re-occupied the Rheinland, despite having vastly superior forces. They talked. Had the French acted, war in Europe may well have been avoided... As an aside, why did you feel the need to type in your thread title with an obvious, directed obscenity? 22327[/snapback] I am not a what if kinda guy... Lets see what will happen. Like the Iraqis (except the extremists)... THEY DON'T HATE ALL AMERICANS... THEY DISLIKE AMERICAN POLICY. Weave the fear into the average American's life all you want. They want to destablize us, especially were it hurts... The financial markets/sectors.
TPS Posted September 8, 2004 Author Posted September 8, 2004 n reading the link (BTW, IHT is owned by the NY Times), Cheney said that No, it's not. Cheney says that an attack with Kerry in office would be more severe. Many assumed after 9-11, attacks would be soon forthcoming. But they didn't - yet. If I understand Kerry, he wants to allow for some sort of negotiation. But if that takes place, would not one expect a marshaling of forces in the lull? Do you honestly feel that our enemies will be wanting to play nice if Kerry is elected? The seem to hate Bush as much as some of our citizens do. In 1934, the French stood by while Hitler re-occupied the Rheinland, despite having vastly superior forces. They talked. Had the French acted, war in Europe may well have been avoided... As an aside, why did you feel the need to type in your thread title with an obvious, directed obscenity? 22327[/snapback] ‘‘It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,’’ Cheney told supporters in Des Moines, Iowa. I would interpret that to mean, we will get hit again if we make the wrong choice on Nov. 2. Which means if we make the right choice, then we won't get hit again. As to your other points. I don't think terrorists care who is in office. I'm not sure "with who" you mean when you say Kerry wants to negotiate? In this day and age I doubt very seriously any elected president will take the threat of terrorism lightly. In terms of acting against terrorism, we disagree over whether Bush made the right decision using most of our resources to topple Saddam--I think that was a huge mistake. I think Graham's new book quotes Gen. Franks in saying that Bush was redirecting resources into Iraq 6-8 months before the invasion, and that we should've finished the job in Afghanistan, and then Yemen and another country (I can't rember) where Al Queda actuall is. While I'm not voting for Kerry, I do think he will do a better job of focusing on the terrorist that are a threat to America, and not waste all our resources going after countries that are a threat to Isreal. As for the title, lighten up Francis! It was meant as humor. Sorry if I'm not being PC....
BRH Posted September 8, 2004 Posted September 8, 2004 This statement is wrong in so many ways I can't believe you haven't self-deleted it yet. 21729[/snapback] "I believe the title of the August 6 briefing was 'Bin Laden determined to attack in United States.'" -- Condoleezza Rice, before the 9/11 Commission.
Recommended Posts