Vote for Kerry and we will get hit again
 

When you saw that title, you were probably outraged by the audacity of such a statement. Amazingly, that title did not come from the likes of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. No, it was paraphrased from the following statement by the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney:

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html

In response, John Edwards had this to say:
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=35758


Cheney's statement brings right out into the open what has been their primary strategy all along: Exploit the painful memories of 9-11 in order to scare Americans into voting not based on the facts, but on fear alone.

The statement implies that as long as we keep Bush and Cheney in power, everything will be ok and we won't be attacked again. This is incredibly disingenuous, but I suppose it won't matter to them if they get elected which is all they appear to care about.

It would be one thing to point out differences in opinion on how we should fight the War on Terror, but Bush and Cheney have not done that. Instead they have tried to pit one American against the next by claiming that only the Republicans want to "terminate terrorism". I guess when President Bush says "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists", the "us" stands for the Republican Party.

As one of our greatest presidents told us "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Likewise, I think we as Americans should be wary of those who would use fear to divide us.

Good post, and I agree with what you have to say. However, I'm not too clear on Kerry's plans for the "war on Terror".

I'm pretty clear on them. Like every other decision he seems to have made he'll stick his freshly licked finger in the air and try and ascertain which way to go by which group of people is pleased the most. Of course when the whim of these people changes so will his position.

That's how the flip-flopper works...or at least how he has worked so far.

Oh and shame on you Cheney....what a shitty thing to say.

-bear

It's all the GOP can run on. They know if they try to hit the issues they'll lose, a majority don't buy into Bush's economic plans or his social plans.

Keep the people scared and get reelected. After hearing this it won't surprise me if we get hit before the elections, if Bush starts to fall behind Kerry.

So what happens if we reelect Bush and we have an inevitable attack? Who's fault is it going to be? According to Cheney it would be Bush's fault, because he's saying if we elect Kerry it would be Kerry's fault. Fair is fair and the words are Cheney's.

Soooooo 9/11 was Bush's fault then because he was president when it happened.

OOOO but wait he wasn't in office long enough and it was all planned during Clinton's watch. Whereas, if we get hit next 9/11 and Kerry is president, according to Cheney it would be Kerry's fault AND OUR fault because we voted Bush out and Bush would be totally free of guilt. Can't people see the fucking hypocrasy in Cheney's words?

The Dems. truly have nothing to lose if they lose this election. We, the people have a lot, but the Dems gain a hell of a lot if they lose and Bush continues to divide the country and we get hit again (which we will, not to a 9/11 extent, but we will get hit again no matter who is president).

That's also how democracy works: power to the people; a nation by and for the people and all that shit...

I'm not surprised -- Kerry set himself up for this with his nonsense about fighting a more "sensitive war on terror." Anyone who doesn't expect Bush/Cheney to take advantage of Kerry's perceived weakness on defense is an idiot.

Do you know how backwards it is to support bush and denounce kerry as a flip-flopper? How silly? Are you aware of the delicious irony that you rub all over your beet red body whenever you call kerry a flip-flopper without realizing that your man is indeed a poll-huckstering flip-flopper as well?

We're all very clear on the bush strategy to combat domestic terrorism. It goes something like: Withdraw valuable resources searching for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and use them instead to invade a hostile yet irrelevant country with zero ties to 9/11. Then leave our ports wide open to ship-based bombing. Then cut taxes to the wealthy.

Unfortunately he's not 'MY MAN,' nor do I support him.

He's 'our' man, for the time being, and imho, he's also the best (or maybe 'least worst' would better sum it up) of the two 'sacks of shit' available as contenders in this upcoming voicing of the people.

As far as your assertion that Kerry and Bush fell from the same flip-flop tree, care to back it up with anything other then talking points? Heck, even talking points might be fun for all of us to laugh at.

As soon as you spew the 'cut taxes for the wealthy' LIE you loose credibility as a serious debater. Thanks for the red-herrings on the issues and ad hom's on me.

To your credit Filtherton...you are a very interesting poster to read. Passionate and usually very logical in nature.

-bear

i'm so confused. i thought the President was the unbending Texas macho man who acts unilaterally for the sheer glee of being a hard-on. Coulda sworn Bush was the guy who is so hardheadedly self-righteous that he would never change his mind out of his sheer arrogant sense of cowboy bravado.

this is just too much for one platypus to keep track of.

When I read the headline on Drudge I was worried Cheney said something so direct. But then I remembered he is not an idiot.

Thats a lot different then saying 'If Kerry wins we will have a terrorist attack'.

Its a warning on the mindset of the Dems on this issue is going to lead to failure, which it did in the 90's and we can't allow to happen again. Reactive vrs proactive, I vote for proactive.

Well, he did cut taxes for the wealthy, i don't know how that is a lie. The phrase "flip-flopper" is a talking point, too.

Anyways,
flip-flop 1) In the 2000 campaign he came out strongly against nation building. Flippety-flop, invade afghanistan(not a bad idea), invade iraq(jury's still out)

2) I am a uniter, not a divider. Not so much.

Actually, fuck it, this person has compiled many of them into a convenient list:
complements of:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954

Thanks for the credit, btw. Sorry if you felt ad hominized, perhaps my words and my intentions were not as one.


The fact is that most politicians are flip-floppers. People who aren't flexible to changing winds get broken in half(if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor, or something). Bush changed his mind about nation building because of 9/11. He really had no choice on afghanistan. You might look at the above list and say to yourself, "Well, actually, bush had a good reason to flip-flop on said issue" and, arguing from the perspective of a changing world and/or political necessity you'd probably be correct. Some of the things on the list probably aren't actually flip-flops, just partisan mischaracterization. The bullshit flows both ways. Kerry has twenty+ years of politics under his belt. The world has changed drastically in twenty years. Doing anything for twenty years requires adaptation and adjustment. Even in the recent campaigns, kerry has a clearly defined platform set forth on his web page. He doesn't seem to get much time to talk about it, but i've checked and it is there.
To be clear, i don't like either of them, but as you say, the 'least worst' will have to do. If you know that both are sacks of shit, why denounce one for actions that are quite similar to the other?

I'm a lazy double poster, sorry fellas.
 

I vote for nonrevisionist. You probably aren't even aware of what the dem's policy on this is, since you can't even acknowledge kerry's platform despite the fact that it sits waiting a few clicks away. How is it you feel that bush and co. are protecting you?

That's the filtherton I've grown fond of over the years :thumbsup:

I don't see them as being similar.

Your right, of course, both have changed positions, flip-flopped is talking point, and the world has changed.

Kerry, however, imho I see, as changing his position as it suits HIM, not his constituency. His political career, his contributors, his needs, his quest for power. Bush, on the other hand I see as changing his positions as the needs of constituency has.

-bear

Oh and one more thing. Bush proposed and CONGRESS passed tax cuts FOR EVERYONE. FOR EVERYONE. Not the wealthy, not the middle class, not the poor. EVERYONE. That is a much more honest way to characterize it.

peace,

-bear

“The first part focuses on security. I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us.” [Kerry, 8/5/04]

“We help fulfill that promise not by lecturing the world, but by leading it. Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment for America itself. We pursue our goals, we will listen to others. We want strong friends to join us, not weak neighbors to dominate. In all our dealings with other nations, we will display the modesty of true confidence and strength.” [Bush Remarks at USS Regan Ceremony, 3/4/01]

“Now, in terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that.” [Bush Delivers Remarks at the Unity, Journalists of Color Conference, 8/6/04]


First Bush was FOR a sensitive approach, now he is against it.

Sure. As long as we ignore the fact that the Upper Class received the lion share of those tax cuts.

The basic explanation for the upper class and business targetted tax cuts was that if the upper class didn't have to pay as much in taxes, they would invest it, which would lead to businesses expanding, which would lead to job creation. Businesses have expanded. Jobs have not been created. The trickle-down theory failed again. Benefit: exclusive to the upper class.

The other option, focusing the tax cuts on the middle class would have allowed the middle class to have some relief from the economic difficulties the country is going through. It would have allowed the middle class to spend more money, which would allow businesses to grow (increasing the value of upper class investments), which would allow jobs to be created. Benefit: even without job creation is encompasses both the upper and middle classes.

Either method would result in the same outcome: more cash in the private sector. There is no economic excuse for focusing the tax cuts on the upper class. And the fact that jobs have not been created is nothing more than evidence that tax cuts are not and should not be considered the end-all-be-all of economic recovery.

<b>seretogis: Please substantiate your post. Here is an example of a rebuttal
to your post that provides validation for the quotes:<p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Richard Kirkpatrick</font></a><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Texas City Sun</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Published August
17, 2004 </font></p>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Could Vice President Richard Cheney be bipolar or could have the Halliburton over-billing scandal adversely affected his memory? Or is he just dishonest? On Thursday last Dick Cheney lashed out at Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry for suggesting that America needs to fight “a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more <i>sensitive</i> war on terror.” <br><br> Cheney neglected to add that President Bush and other top administration officials, including Cheney himself, have publicly called for “<i>sensitive</i>” use of American military power. In March, 2001 at the christening of the USS Ronald Reagan, President Bush said “… because America is powerful, we must be <i>sensitive</i> about expressing our power and influence.” On January 7, 2003, Gen. Richard Meyers, chairman of the president’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the administration asks “our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very <i>sensitive</i> to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation. Again, in April, 2003, Cheney said, “We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We’re not in<i>sensitive</i> to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships.”.............................</font></p>
<a href="http://texascitysun.com/story.lasso?wcd=6381">http://texascitysun.com/story.lasso?wcd=6381</a>
<p>
<b>Please consider that there is ample evidence in media reports that Cheney and Bush simply pick a point that may contain some validity, and bend it to
better fit their tactic of repeating it often enough that it gains validity simply
through hearing it often enough, even though it does not contrast Bush and
Cheney's own policies or behavior from that of Kerry's. It is just a tactic to shift the focus of
a negative......like....for instance changing a position on an issue or policy,
entirely over to Kerry, when what is closer to fact is that both Bush and Kerry
have a history of substantial changes in positions and policy stances. Karl
Rove even is able to manipulate you and other supporters to parrot these
"talking points" to distort the actual record even further than Bush and Cheney are capable of by themselves.
</b>

It is not unreasonable IMO to theorize that if the majority of Americans think that Kerry will be soft on terror then the terrorists might think it to and put him to the test.

And while I think that terrorists are not stopping just because Bush is in the Whitehouse, I also think that certain nations that traditionally support terrorists are less likely to do so with Bush than Kerry...which is yet another reason for the Iraq war.

Damn, its all black and white man, there ain't no gray..its scary how we have come down to 2 simple political parties that run the whole show...VOTE Libertarian , Green, Earth....or none of the above...

Libertarian is the Republican party without the religious people and evil neo-cons.

Green is the far left of the democrats.

Neither can win on their own, so neither are viable.

A penny for one, a dollar for the other. Everyone benefits! happy days. :hmm:

....except for all those tax increases states put on the people to make up for the budget shortfalls that Bush caused with his tax cuts which actually made the middle and lower class pay more in taxes in recent years while the rich still got an overall surplus...

But in the beginning, federally everyone got something, right?

hahaha people are STILL calling Kerry a flip-flopper without realizing Bush's history (9/11 commission, anyone)? Wowwwwww... :lol: :lol:

On topic.
Who was it that was playing on his "ranch" instead of reading and responding to critical intelligence memos detailing the threat that Osama posed to america for his first 9 months in office.

Thank you Mr. Go Fuck Yourself, but I feel safer with someone who takes terrorist threats seriously.

What a pathetic piece of shit.

I'll back it up for him. He said there were WMD's and that's WHY we were going into Iraq.

Now he's saying we'd have gone whether there were WMD's or not.



He said bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and that's why we'll stop at nothing to get him.

Now bin Laden's totally forgotten (by him anyway) and somehow Saddam is connected with 9/11 and it's far more important to invade Iraq than it is to catch the terrorist.



He said in his campaign that he was an isolationist president.

Now - - well. . isolationists don't attack countries that aren't attacking us first.



He said that anyone who harbors, trains, funds, etc. terrorists are on our hit list.

Now he fails entirely to put Saudi Arabia on our hit list.



in 2001 he promised not to touch the social security surplus.

In 2002 he submitted a budget with plans to spend the social security surplus to fund other programs through the year 2013, to the tune of around 1.4 trillion dollars or so.



In May of this year, he announced that he was in favor of leaving tobacco subsidies the way they are.

In June of this year, he announced that he was open to a buyout of tobacco subsidies.



In 2002 he said he would not offer North Korea any incentives to disarm.

In 2004 he offered them money and political favors if they disarmed.



in June of 2000 he said he supports women's rights to choose whether to have an abortion or not.

In October of 2000, he announced that he is pro life.


In 2000 he said "the president must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price" of oil. He said the president "ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots."

In 2004 he refused to personally lobby OPEC to reduce oil prices or to increase oil supply.


In May of 2003 he said in a polish interview "..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

In February of 2004 he said we hadn't found them, and didn't know where they were.


In September of 2001 he said he wanted bin Laden, "dead or alive."

In March of 2002 he said in a press conference "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."



In February of 2000 he said that the issue of gay marriage is an issue to be decided by the states.

In February of 2004 he called for a constitutional ammendment making it federally illegal for gays to get married.


In March of 2000 he said "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression."

In March of 2002 he signed McCain-Feingold into law, saying "This bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law."


In 2002 he set a timeline for Saddam, saying that he had a month to comply with all of Bush's demands or he'd get attacked.

In 2004 he said "I don't think you give timelines to dictators."


In April of 2004 he said "can you ever win the war on terror? Of course you can."

On August 30, 2004 he said "I don't think you can win it (the war on terror)"

On August 31, 2004 he said "make no mistake about it we are winning and we will win (the war on terror.)"




That enough for ya? I mean, there's a LOT more but my fingers are getting tired ;)

I think the people that keep using the "Kerry is a flip-flopper" are just impressionable folk who are easily swayed by media and what people tell them. If a million people said "the sky is red", these people would also follow suit.

Otherwise they'd realize that pretty much every politician does it and that harassing a politician about flip-flopping is insanely redundant. It's even funnier when other politicians do it.. another "pot calling the kettle black".

the reason for this statement is pretty obvious:
in one front page article plastered across most dailies (maybe even a few american dailies) the announcement that the americans are starting to cede parts of central iraq to "insurgents" in principle--which is an index of, well, losing--isnt it?
the casualties for the americans are over 1000--still not a word on the civilian casualties caused by the americans.
kerry attacked the joke-coalition yesterday as well--that it is a joke should be obvious to anyone who looks, even to rightwingers, i would wager.

so it stands to reason:
none of this looks good for the non-entity in chief who has been marketed as a "war president"....

therefore, send in cheney to issue his [edit] statement trying to position kerry as a "terrorist threat"

wonder where the bottom of this barrel is?
karl rove will find it.

$2.00+ per gallon of gas? Tax cuts once a year. I would say that might nullify the tax cuts. But I would never expect Bush or anyone of adjusting to the cost of gas to, uh....say...pay for a war. It's not like Bush or Cheney have ties to oil companies.

If you feel the need to use the word "fuck" or "shit" in any form to describe one of the candidates, don't be surprised if the force of your arguments is diminished.

the expression i used is more neutral than it would appear--it simply means stupid. but fine--i'll edit it out.

Bush needs to be called out for the 1000+ US deaths he is responsible for in Iraq. The majority of which have come after he called an end to the "major conflict" there. IMO this shows a huge lack of understanding about the adversary we face which views the battles we are fighting now as the major conflict. These are terrorists we are fighting, not an army. They hit and disappear, which they have been very affective at for the last few months.

1000+ US deaths. 1/3 of the amount who perished in the Trade Towers/Pentagon attacks. Is he willing to keep us there until he has eclipsed the Trade Towers/Pentagon body count?

I would much rather see someone in office who will work with other countries to lessen our presence and try to successfully end the American occupation of Iraq.

By the way - does anyone remember a terrorist named Osama bin Laden who was the mastermind behind the Trade Towers/Pentagon? Our president doesn't.

He used the terms himself first.

And I readily admit to holding no respect for a man, holding one of the highest offices in the nation, who thinks the equal counter to his party is destructive to the long term existance of america as we know it.

John Edwards response was right on. We are in this together folks.

Ummmm, isn't that what the President is supposed to do? I mean, he is supposed to be representing the people...

I wonder how people are dealing with the news that certain areas are going to be leapfrogged during the elections.

Of course, this is entirely rational that sunni areas will be left out of the voting process, given that they are mired insurgency. Of course, they just happen to be a minority in the country--just an unnecessary side-effect, I suppose.

[In my opinion most politicans would melt their grandmother down to glue to get elected... it isnt a Dem or Rep issue - very few politicans have any level they will not sink to, or any fear they will not exploit, in order to grab votes.

Bush isn't too clear on his plans for the "war on terror!"

Bush is not too clear on much of anything, that is why all he could do is bash Kerry rather than discuss important issues that need to be resolved and what he will do to resolve them. The man knows he has done nothing but lead this country in the wrong direction and now he is trying to decieve the public in order to sway votes in his direction by bashing Kerry on non issues.

<img src="http://emeraldsword.free.fr/cornholio.jpg">
Are you threatening me?

&lt;hat mode="tinfoil"&gt;What are you saying, Dick? Got some more patsies warming up to fly but not land planes? Or have you had an original idea? Port of LA or Port of Houston?&lt;/hat&gt;

Yep this sounds exactly like the Bush addministration all over again. Half the people in the US are afraid of a Terror Attack on America and the other Half are afraid of Bush's form of Terrorism.