Cheney comes out and says it: if you vote for Kerry, Al Qaeda might kill you

I never heard truer words from Cheney...I agreed 100% with what he said.

 

Does this administration run on anything but fear?

 

You are a liar.

 

I can just picture Rove in some corner of the West Wing, dancing around the room, cackling, and telling all and sundry, "See?? I told you. I told you! It's so damn easy!"

 

NO FEAR...just the truth...

 

Do this more often. Nicely done.

 

And that basically sums up the whole message of the Bush-Cheney campaign.

The problem is though is that this is strength bereft of wisdom. Even by their own admission they have miscalculated. A miscalculation that as of today has cost 1,000 of our finest their lives. Yet their whole political rhetoric is based on the perception of their consistent and right use of strength.

This is the problem with the Bush-Cheney campaign and while I won't call them liars I will say that they market in half truths.

Lets look at their record of "consitent" aplication of strength:

1. They invaded Afghanistan but resisted putting sizable amounts of US troops on the ground and instead relied upon the Afghan Northern Alliance and local warlords of uncertain allegiance to do the fighting. At the critical moment of pursuit of Osama Bin Ladin they left it primarily up to those same Afghans to capture Bin Ladin, the man who a few months ago had masterminded the murder of 3,000 Americans, rather than send in strong contingent of American troops.

2. Since then there has been US forces around a 15th of the size of the force in Iraq patrolling a country roughly the same size as Iraq but with far more difficult terrain. In the meantime the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants continue to attack, warlords have reasserted their control over local regions and Osama Bin Ladin still is at large.

3. They invaded Iraq on the rumored grounds that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMD and was prepared to develop much more WMD. At the same time North Korea publically admits to having a nuclear and other WMD program even brags that they will make more. Instead of invading or even assembling forces to invade this Admin. calls it a regional problem that should be handled through multiparty negotiations. They even announce that most of the current US force along the DMZ will be pulled back.

3. They assembled a force that was only about twice the size of the force that ousted Saddam from Kuwait to invade occupy all of Iraq. A force that was underequipped and under trained to deal with the sudden collapse of Saddam's forces and the breakdown of order that followed. Further a force that was ill prepared to both do reconstruction and fight a lingering insurgency. This is what GW Bush meant by "catastrophic victory" but this shouldn't have come as a surprise since many including senior officers had warned that this scenario could very well happen and that any invasion or Iraq required both the forces with the training and planning to deal with exactly this sort of situation.

4. When encountered with deeply embedded insurgents in Fallujah and Najaf US forces have held back and instead of attempting to wipe them out have either allowed the insurgents to leave, like Najaf both in April and recently, or in the case of Fallujah handed over control to forces who are either incapable, unwilling or even in league with the insurgents. While I agree that there may be wisdom to these decisions this is a clear contradiction of the Administration's stated rhetoric of strength. In the case of Fallujah many in Iraq read it as an outright capitulation to our enemies.

Do any of these look like the consistent application of strength or doing everything it takes to protect America? While this Administration continues to preach a tough line about strength and accuse Kerry of being a flip flopper this Administration itself has a record of flip flopping and compromising when it comes to using strength. IMO its the height of hypocrisy for them to argue that they have and will do all they can to keep us safe when even at the moment that they almost had the mastermind of 9/11 they chose to leave that task to Afghanis, some of who a few weeks ago were allied with Bin Ladin, rather than use American troops.

Finally although Cheney now intimates that a vote for Kerry might lead to another attack on several occasions he and others in the Administration have warned that there is still the very real possibility, even liklihood, that an another attack could occur on their watch. That even with their best efforts our enemies could still succeed. Therefore IMO again its the height of hypocrisy to even intimate that an attack could occur if Kerry wins when they themselves admit that another attack could occur even if they win.

 

But apparently you have faith in GW Bush.

While I think faith is necessary the problem with it is that its irrational.

IMO GW Bush is running on a blind faith that his Administration has made things much safer but I think an objective look would say otherwise. Especially since they themselves admit that another attack could and likely will occur, continually warn that its now more dangerous than ever for Americans to travel, confess to miscaculations that have led to a "catastrophic success" and finally even acknowledge that the war on terror isn't winnable.

 

I don't know how to use the edit function or even if I can use the edit function (Clutch did you get that check I sent you two months ago?) So allow me to edit myself.

I have deep respect for our troops and admire all of them even though I don't always agree with the missions they on sent on. So I'm going to retract using the latest death toll of our troops for rhetorical purposes. This is certainly a fact that will and should have great bearing on political debates but after rereading my post I see that it was in poor taste to use it at this time and this manner.

I know in the big scheme of things this forum isn't really that important and since most of us don't know each other its OK if we get rude and tactless but for my own respect for our soldiers I felt it was best to criticize myself here.

I suppose now some will accuse me of being a flip flopper so be it.

 

There was actually more said than most of the press is reporting. Before i post this link, I admit that it's from a partisan website. However, I feel that it presents all the facts. You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but it's necessary to read all the facts first.

Here goes: http://right-thinking.com/index.php/weblog/democrat_hyperbole/

 

Well i meant the site as a whole is more right-leaning, not this specific post. I really put that in there for people who would say that you cant trust the article because of where it came from. I happen to love the site. I just wanted people to go into it with an open mind.

 

Frankly I don't see why they continue to use law enforcement as a perjorative term in regards to terrorism. Who's more likely to prevent a terrorist attack here in America: The FBI or Navy SEALS? Not all law enforcement is passive either. What about undercover police stings and stakeouts? The military isn't gonna conduct those.

 

... only if you're completely paranoid.

 

No actually, it's been all about fear since 9/11 and I am gettting tired of the way the Bush administration uses fear as a campaign tool. It's almost kind of a bullying tactic, and I hate to think that people are voting for Bush because they're afraid and paranoid.

I'm actually starting to think the only way people would feel safe is if we bombed the hell out of every country in the world and in the end the US would be the only one standing.

 

Did you or did you not add this little ditty to your comment a bout GreenVegan76's four-point complaint about the Republicans:

re: GV' response to giddy.... served... or something like that.

Does that make you a troll then or a hypocrite now?

Yes, you pissed me off. This is a common tactic that your side of this forum perpetrates constantly. Take a little of your own medicine or call off your own dogs first-- excuse the mixed metaphor but it just sounded right!

 

How in the world is expressing an opinion lying?

 

As Trade Jorge has pointed out we lose 50,000 to auto accidents every year.

We are all at much greater risk of being injured or dying from an auto accident than we are from terrorists.

I think if we elect Bush/Cheny our nation is in danger of going back to pre-seatbelt law mentality. And as we can see that's a bigger threat to us than a pre 9/11 mentality.

 

FranchiseBlade, you are truly making a fool of yourself as you attempt to minimize the terrorist threat. The threat is far more severe than dying, as you ridiculously imply as you attempt to relate car crashes to terrorist deaths. The threat is a threat to our way of life. It is a threat to our economy, and a threat to our system of government. It is a threat to our future. We are at war with terrorists and here you are trying to diminish the threat they pose.

Seriously, stop it with that garbage. It is in incredibly bad taste. This is the worst thing I have ever seen you post.