Cheney Threatens US w/ Terror if Kerry Elected?

[OB Kenobi]

Oh my, I think old **** had one too many again...


DES MOINES, Iowa — Vice President **** Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,131692,00.html

They should bring out good ol' **** more often, any more talk like this and it's guaranteed to get Kerry elected.

[Sir Zach of R.]

I think he means that the terrorists will think the US will be weaker with Kerry as president, and would see it as a good time to launch another attack. This is in no way a threat from Cheney. Learn english jackass. :bash:

[catchv22]

Does it matter who's in the office? If Kerry was in the office and we got attacked it would probably be the same if W got another 4 years...

[Romulus]

Does it matter who's in the office? If Kerry was in the office and we got attacked it would probably be the same if W got another 4 years...

Umm yes it does.

Where exactly are you from Catch?

[scm77]

Cheney also said people would slip back into the pre-9/11 mindset where they think terrorist attacks are a criminal act and not an act of war.

[budanski]

"that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."

The difference between the two parties... The Republican campaign is running with a post 9/11 mentality, the Democrats with a pre-9/11. I wouldnt be surprised if Kerry would want to make terrorism a law enforcement matter again.

[pistol]

The difference between the two parties... The Republican campaign is running with a post 9/11 mentality, the Democrats with a pre-9/11. I wouldnt be surprised if Kerry would want to make terrorism a law enforcement matter again.

If anything, America will be safer with Kerry and Edwards in power. The Bush administration doesn't even believe the war on terror is "winable", and with their current strategy, that is probably an accurate statement.

[chauncy republicans]

Yeah, I'm sure Kerry will just sit around and let Americans die, because he's a liberal douche bent on destroying America. Tell the lie long enough... :cantbeli:

BTW That was a ****ing threat from Cheney, learn English jackass.


I wonder who would fund this attack...Bush/Cheney 2004 maybe.

[Secret Squirrel]

This is even more damaging coming from Cheney considering that he's the puppet master. If Bush had said it, it would just be chalked up as another "Bushism". ;)

[budanski]

If anything, America will be safer with Kerry and Edwards in power. The Bush administration doesn't even believe the war on terror is "winable", and with their current strategy, that is probably an accurate statement.
He clarified that we wouldn't win in a conventional way. During an interview on MSNBC, Matt Lauer debunked the whole issue by saying he perfectly understood Bush's point within the context of his questions.


Yeah, I'm sure Kerry will just sit around and let Americans die, because he's a liberal douche bent on destroying America. Tell the lie long enough... :cantbeli:
Yes and we can see by their senate voting records. :roll:


BTW That was a f*** threat from Cheney, learn English jackass.
You already lost the argument but FYI, I am good Engrish. ;)

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Vote for me! or you may get killed by terrorists....nice plan :roll:

Politicians are using 9-11 as an election ploy, and thats fecking twisted. There playing on the fears of the American population in hopes of getting themselves back in power, politicians suck. Anyone who would vote for another party because they believe they would be "safer", needs to get there head examined.

[jmatucd]

Perhaps Cheney was pointing out the fact that if the government has a more aggressive anti-terrorism stance, then the likelihood of a successful attack decreases. Logically, this can be extended to the following – if you chose to vote in a government that will protect less aggressively against terrorism, then the likelihood of successful attack increases dramatically.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Ok answer me this then, day to day are you worried about a terrorists incident were you live?

[pistol]

He clarified that we wouldn't win in a conventional way.


I don't know that President Bush has ever clarified anything. When will he be clarifying how OB/GYNs practice their love with women? What really happened was his handlers in the back room went :cantbeli: and scurried off to do damage control the next day like they always have to do anytime they let Bush talk to the press without a script.

Bush has no interest in winning the war on terror, and his statement just backs up that assertion. His whole campaign is based upon scaring the American people into believing that he is the only person that can keep America safe. He has no real record to run on, the economy is in the toilet, the government is 7 trillion in dept, and Iraq is a mess.

[chauncy republicans]

If anything, America will be safer with Kerry and Edwards in power. The Bush administration doesn't even believe the war on terror is "winable", and with their current strategy, that is probably an accurate statement.
He clarified that we wouldn't win in a conventional way. During an interview on MSNBC, Matt Lauer debunked the whole issue by saying he perfectly understood Bush's point within the context of his questions.


Yeah, I'm sure Kerry will just sit around and let Americans die, because he's a liberal douche bent on destroying America. Tell the lie long enough... :cantbeli:
Yes and we can see by their senate voting records. :roll:


BTW That was a f*** threat from Cheney, learn English jackass.
You already lost the argument but FYI, I am good Engrish. ;)
Argument? :cantbeli: Apparently you dont know the difference between argument and comment, thats o.k. though, you are grossly mistaken about many other things so I'm sure this is nothing new to you.

[Sir Zach of R.]

No, you lost. I don't even know why you're still talking. :backhand:

[henksmoeder]

The terrorist threat under Bush and Cheney is by far bigger. Kerry is not the one bombing an Islamic country that has no ties with the group that ineed did attack the US.

[Sayeret]

Rather deceiving title.

[Sayeret]

This is even more damaging coming from Cheney considering that he's the puppet master. If Bush had said it, it would just be chalked up as another "Bushism".

Yeah we all know Cheny is the maaster puppet since we almost never hear about him. :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

[catchv22]

I'm from the US, but why does it matter?

And if the terrorists want to attack us so bad, do you think they care who's in power? Terrorists are fanatics that hate the US no matter who's in charge. These plots are planned a long time ahead. Do you think they'll call it off if one person get's into office and not another?

[Secret Squirrel]

This is even more damaging coming from Cheney considering that he's the puppet master. If Bush had said it, it would just be chalked up as another "Bushism".

Yeah we all know Cheny is the maaster puppet since we almost never hear about him. :cantbeli: :cantbeli:

Thus the "puppet master" comment. ;)

[Sir Zach of R.]

I'm from the US, but why does it matter?

And if the terrorists want to attack us so bad, do you think they care who's in power? Terrorists are fanatics that hate the US no matter who's in charge. These plots are planned a long time ahead. Do you think they'll call it off if one person get's into office and not another?

Very good point, but what Cheney is saying is that Kerry is less likely to do something about before we're attacked. Kerry has even said that we won't go on the offensive until we're attacked. Knock knock, we've already been attacked. Screw the whole eye for an eye, I'm going for an eye, nose, jaw, and tooth for an eye. And if they hit back again we're just gonna have to strike back twice as hard and fierce.

[Sayeret]

Thus the "puppet master" comment.

And your proof behind that comment?

Did you ever think that maybe if Bush hadn't gone to war and Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group used WMD from Iraq then people like you would be angry that he hadn't done anything earlier.

[OB Kenobi]

I think he means that the terrorists will think the US will be weaker with Kerry as president, and would see it as a good time to launch another attack. This is in no way a threat from Cheney. Learn english jackass. :bash:

Explain to me how Kerry is "weak." Maybe you mistake intelligence for weakness.

[OB Kenobi]

Thus the "puppet master" comment.

And your proof behind that comment?

Did you ever think that maybe if Bush hadn't gone to war and Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group used WMD from Iraq then people like you would be angry that he hadn't done anything earlier.

What WMD from Iraq, Sayaret?

[Sir Zach of R.]

I think he means that the terrorists will think the US will be weaker with Kerry as president, and would see it as a good time to launch another attack. This is in no way a threat from Cheney. Learn english jackass. :bash:

Explain to me how Kerry is "weak." Maybe you mistake intelligence for weakness.

Look at his f*cking senate record and how he blasted his fellow veterans in after Vietnam! :bash:

[jmatucd]

“The terrorist threat under Bush and Cheney is by far bigger. Kerry is not the one bombing an Islamic country that has no ties with the group that ineed did attack the US.”

Yes, while Kerrey is not the one bombing anyone it is easily said that Bush was not bombing anyone before 9/11 occurred. So let me run through this chronologically, Bush does not attack Islamists; Islamists attack American civilians killing 3000; Bush seeks out to kill Islamists and those who would support any further attacks.

So Kerry would not attack other countries after the US is attacked with suicide attacks. Whereas Bush will and has.

I think this accurately describes the situation – Bush bombs our enemies, Kerry chooses not to.

Well then, I’m all decided!



As for the reason why Kerry is ‘weak’. He voted against every weapon system that we use today. If he cast the deciding vote in each case, we would be fighting our wars with Vietnam era hardware. He tried slashing the intelligence budget by 6 billion dollars. After coming back from Vietnam (where he admittedly committed atrocities – specifically, burned down villages) he paraded the war crimes of all soldiers in Vietnam and met with representatives of the Communist North Vietnam in (I believe) France.

Do you need anymore reasons why this man should not be president; but rather, should not be tried for his well documented, admitted ‘war crimes’ against the Vietnamese people?

Oh well, and the wheel spins a bit more.

[American Patriot]

Cheney is a good man. Kerry on the other hand is a lying self-serving douchebag.

[Secret Squirrel]

As for the reason why Kerry is ‘weak’. He voted against every weapon system that we use today. If he cast the deciding vote in each case, we would be fighting our wars with Vietnam era hardware. He tried slashing the intelligence budget by 6 billion dollars. After coming back from Vietnam (where he admittedly committed atrocities – specifically, burned down villages) he paraded the war crimes of all soldiers in Vietnam and met with representatives of the Communist North Vietnam in (I believe) France.

Do you need anymore reasons why this man should not be president; but rather, should not be tried for his well documented, admitted ‘war crimes’ against the Vietnamese people?

Oh well, and the wheel spins a bit more.

Ignorance is bliss but the devil is in the details. Regarding the B - 2, Bush sr. cancelled the it in 1992 (3 year after the wall fell). From his 1992 address before a joint session of the congress on the state of the union...


Two years ago, I began planning cuts in military spending that reflected the changes of the new era. But now, this year, with imperial communism gone, that process can be accelerated. Tonight I can tell you of dramatic changes in our strategic nuclear force. These are actions we are taking on our own because they are the right thing to do. After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles.

You can find the entire speech here (http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=1992).

But of course, senate bills and votes arent either yay or nay for each specific item. There's a lot of things pilled into each bill. It looks bad when someone simply lists all the things Kerry supposedly and specifically voted against but it's just a distortion. In 1989 Cheney, the current VP, recommended specifically cancelling the AH-64. Does that make him weak on national defense or military spending? Of course it doesnt; it happened 15 years ago. Also worth noting is that starting in 1997 Kerry voted for every regular Department of Defense appropriations bill and for every authorization bill as well.

Regarding the intelligence cuts, they amounted to less than 1% of the budget and they were proposed when other politicans, including republicans, wanted much larger cuts when it was revealed that some agencies werent spending the money they had. But just so I'm certain regarding what exactly you're refering to, please post the specific bills and whatnot regarding intelligence funding (as well as the republicans bills ;) ).

[mobster]

If Kerry is elected, I will move to Canada or Hawaii.

[American Patriot]

Kerry won't be elected. :P

[mobster]

American Patriot.


you rule.


.

[Flagg]

If Kerry is elected, I will move to Canada or Hawaii.

Last time I checked Hawaii is still part of the United States, so what would the point be besides disclosing your geography handicap?

[chauncy republicans]

If Kerry is elected, I will move to Canada or Hawaii.
:cantbeli:

[Durandal]

I am not a big Cheney fan, but damn that was some smart mud slinging.

Call it like it is...

You get Kerry in office and you get this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/e/e5/Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_%28122%29.jpg

[catchv22]

Establishing diplomatic links to North Korea so we can talk is a bad thing?

Would you rather just bomb the **** out of them without talking to them first? You don't have to charge into every situation guns a blazing. There's a time when a smart word can get you a thing or too.

[Romulus]

Establishing diplomatic links to North Korea so we can talk is a bad thing?

Would you rather just bomb the **** out of them without talking to them first?

Yes.

Yes.


Talking is what got us where we are now. Facing a nuclear North Korea.

[catchv22]

Actually, that picture shows the first time we spoke with North Korea in some 40-50 years.

Not talking is what got us into this mess. Of course I doubt that if we spoke to them it would change anything, but still. Better to say you offered them a better solution before they declined and got utterly destroyed by the world's strongest military.

[Durandal]

Establishing diplomatic links to North Korea so we can talk is a bad thing?

Would you rather just bomb the **** out of them without talking to them first? You don't have to charge into every situation guns a blazing. There's a time when a smart word can get you a thing or too.

Maybe you missed the whole "Clinton Administration gave them uranium then turned the cheek" part...

I figured I would not have to explain that.

N. Korean's are starving because of that fat bastard.

As far as I am concerned, if you do not have a government that represents the people then we should tell them to take a hike and come back when their leaders are popularly elected.

[Sir Zach of R.]

I am not a big Cheney fan, but damn that was some smart mud slinging.

Call it like it is...

You get Kerry in office and you get this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/e/e5/Great_Leader_Comrade_Kim_Jong_Il_%28122%29.jpg

Secretary of State under Clinton right? I forget her name.

[Romulus]

Madelyn Albright

[shrek]

Well, the intelligent side of this.........oh wait, Kenobi started this thread, intelligence not related!


To everyone else: If we Elect Kerry president, he will pull out of A-stan and Iraq, the vacuums left behind will fill back up with civil war and dictators, and the memory of carrying the lifeless body of my friend to a chopper will take on a whole new meaning; his death will have been for nothing.

This is heavy because I wanted it to be. So, chew on that thought a while Kenobi!

[pinkeye]

latimes.com: Cheney acknowledges defense cuts began on his watch
By Michael Finnegan/Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

August 24, 2000
Web posted at: 12:43 p.m. EDT (1643 GMT)

BAKERSFIELD, California (Los Angeles Times) -- **** Cheney, the Republican vice presidential nominee, acknowledged Wednesday that military cutbacks began during the Bush administration but said further cuts under President Clinton had "gone too far."

In his first campaign appearance to showcase his background as secretary of Defense, Cheney renewed his call for a military buildup, but he also took responsibility for setting the downsizing in motion a decade ago under President Bush. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, "everybody understood" that the U.S. military had to shrink, Cheney told cadets in the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps at Bakersfield High School.

"We were victorious in the Cold War, and in the aftermath of that, we did in fact significantly reduce the overall size of the U.S. military," Cheney said. "But I think we've gone too far with it. I think we've shrunk the force now at the same time we've been adding commitments, and so we're stretched pretty thin."

He said Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican presidential nominee, would reverse the trend.

"If Gov. Bush and I are successful in our campaign, it would be our expectation to do a thorough scrub of our commitments around the world, decide which ones are really priority," he said.

Cheney's remarks came a day after Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee, told veterans in Milwaukee that he was "proud we finally reversed the defense cuts begun in the previous administration."

Cheney said a new Bush administration would invest in high-tech upgrades of weapons and equipment, raise military pay and improve housing and education. Cheney appeared before the cadets on the second day of his first West Coast campaign swing. On Wednesday evening, he attended two fund-raisers near Santa Barbara for the California Republican Party's Victory 2000 Committee. Today, he and his wife, Lynne, plan to campaign in Oregon and return home to Jackson Hole, Wyo.

At the ROTC event, Cheney recounted his role as Defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War in a speech emphasizing the value of "character" in the military. He recalled the two-man crews of Apache helicopters that he dispatched to destroy Iraq's early-warning defense systems. "In fact, the integrity of the operation depended upon those soldiers and airmen being just as effective, and just as committed, and just as dependable and reliable as anybody else up and down the chain of command."

His intent, said Gerald Parsky, chairman of the Bush-Cheney California campaign, was partly to evoke doubts about Clinton's character.

Cheney's visit to Bakersfield, a Republican stronghold, offered him the chance to voice conservative views that he has generally downplayed as Bush strives to court moderate voters. At the high school, an ROTC cadet asked Cheney about prayer in public schools.

"I do think there's an appropriate place in our public institutions and gatherings for prayer," Cheney said.

Another cadet asked him about gun control. "I'm more interested in enforcing the existing statutes than I am in adding additional restrictions that might restrain law-abiding citizens," he said.

---------

Cheney's past defense cuts questioned
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 29, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Vice President **** Cheney, who has been charging that John F. Kerry would be a dangerous commander-in-chief because he opposed many key weapons that the military now relies on, himself presided over the biggest cutbacks in defense programs in modern history when he was secretary of defense under the first President Bush.

As Pentagon chief from 1989 to 1993, Cheney canceled or cut back many of the same weapons programs -- bombers, fighter planes, tanks -- that he says Kerry tried to deprive the armed forces of.

Many of the Cheney-era cuts were made at the end of the Cold War, when the administration of President George H.W. Bush was seeking to reduce the size of the military and secure a ''peace dividend." But some of these downsizing efforts would have affected the military of today.

Cheney proposed, for instance, disbanding part of the Army's Fourth Infantry Division, Congressional Quarterly reported in 1989. Troops from that division captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein last December.

The latest Bush-Cheney campaign ad depicts weapons such as the B-2 stealth bomber flying over a battlefield and then disappearing into thin air, attempting to convince voters that if Kerry prevailed back then, US military forces would be underequipped.

Yet Cheney canceled the B-2 bomber program after 20 planes, even though the Air Force saidit needed 132. He also canceled the Navy's A-12 bomber and scaled back the Seawolf submarine.

During his Pentagon stint, the size of the Army was reduced by more than 26 percent, the Air Force by 22 percent, the Navy by 14 percent, and the Marines by 10 percent, according to the Pentagon's official biography of Cheney.

But support for particular weapons ''is not a very useful way to judge strength or weakness," said a former congressional defense staffer who asked not to be named. Using such a yardstick, he added, President Jimmy Carter was the ''strongest" because his budgets resulted in the weapons that won the 1991 Gulf War.

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.

---------

Cheney pared defense while Pentagon chief

THE BOSTON GLOBE

April 29, 2004

WASHINGTON – Vice President **** Cheney, who has been charging that John Kerry would be a dangerous president because he opposed many key weapons that the military now relies on, himself presided over the biggest cutbacks in defense programs in modern history when he was secretary of defense under the first President Bush.

As Pentagon chief from 1989 to 1993 Cheney canceled or cut back many of the same weapons programs – bombers, fighter planes, battle tanks – that he says Kerry tried to deprive the armed forces of.

Many of the Cheney-era cuts were made at the end of the Cold War, when the administration of President George H.W. Bush was seeking to reduce the size of the military. But some of these downsizing efforts would have affected the military of today.

Cheney proposed, for instance, disbanding part of the Army's Fourth Infantry Division, the unit that captured former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein last December, according to Congressional Quarterly.

The latest Bush-Cheney campaign ad depicts weapons such as the B-2 stealth bomber flying over a battlefield and then disappearing into thin air, attempting to convince voters that if Kerry prevailed back then, U.S. military forces would be underequipped.

Yet Cheney canceled the B-2 bomber program after 20 planes, even though the Air Force insisted it needed 132. He opposed upgrading the M1 Abrams tank, recommended killing the latest model of the F-14 fighter jet and opposed buying more F-15s.


etc., etc., etc.

[catchv22]

We gave them Uranium? I never heard of that. I'll have to research it some more.

[Sir Zach of R.]

Well, the intelligent side of this.........oh wait, Kenobi started this thread, intelligence not related!


To everyone else: If we Elect Kerry president, he will pull out of A-stan and Iraq, the vacuums left behind will fill back up with civil war and dictators, and the memory of carrying the lifeless body of my friend to a chopper will take on a whole new meaning; his death will have been for nothing.

This is heavy because I wanted it to be. So, chew on that thought a while Kenobi!

Shrek, you and your guys truly are American heroes. I'm glad to be able to talk to someone like you. May your friend rest in peace.

[Durandal]

We gave them Uranium? I never heard of that. I'll have to research it some more.

Excuse me, I'll be more specific...

From The Washington Times


*The United States, Japan and South Korea agreed to provide North Korea with two light-water reactors as part of the 1994 Agreed Framework, negotiated by the Clinton administration. The reactors — which use ordinary water instead of "heavy water" containing the hydrogen isotope deuterium — are designed to be less useful for making nuclear weapons.
****The 1994 agreement was supposed to have halted Pyongyang's development of nuclear arms but was abandoned after North Korea's disclosure to a U.S. diplomat in October 2002 that it was working on uranium enrichment, a process that would allow North Korea to produce fuel for nuclear bombs.


From PBS.org


Subsequent negotiations between the two countries resulted in the Agreed Framework of 1994, in which North Korea agreed to shut down the Yongbyon complex and cease construction on two larger reactors, one at Yongbyon and one at another site, Taechon. In return, the U.S. promised to provide two modern light-water nuclear reactors, which would provide North Korea with the energy the country desperately needed, but was harder to use for nuclear weapons development. In addition, the U.S. committed to delivering 500,000 metric tons of heavy fuel oil annually to North Korea, purportedly to offset the loss of energy from the closing of the nuclear reactor.

The Agreed Frame Work 0f 1994 details can be found here:

http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp

Quickly...

The halt production, construction, operation of the larger reactors that can produce plutonium and the the group (mainly the United States) would provide "light" water reactors that were more efficient, safer, and much more difficult to get plutonium from (a by product of uranium...simplified explanation, but more or less accurate).

North Korea pulled the wool over the eyes of the Administration. Personally, I would like to think Clinton was trying to get a name for himself as the "World Peace" guy, ending nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula and after, half a decade of moderated talks, force an even temporary peace in the Middle East.

Neither happened.

The North Korean thing was just plain dumb.

[Geezah]

The difference between the two parties... The Republican campaign is running with a post 9/11 mentality, the Democrats with a pre-9/11. I wouldnt be surprised if Kerry would want to make terrorism a law enforcement matter again.

If anything, America will be safer with Kerry and Edwards in power. The Bush administration doesn't even believe the war on terror is "winable", and with their current strategy, that is probably an accurate statement.

Sorry and you think it is :cantbeli: wow how nieve you really are, this is a Jihad it will never end, the best we can do is contain it!

[Geezah]

Vote for me! or you may get killed by terrorists....nice plan :roll:

Politicians are using 9-11 as an election ploy, and thats fecking twisted. There playing on the fears of the American population in hopes of getting themselves back in power, politicians suck. Anyone who would vote for another party because they believe they would be "safer", needs to get there head examined.

The Democraps have a history of cutting funding to the Military, so that equals more chances of being hit, I'm quite happy with the man in power at the moment and if it means 'they move, we move first' then so be it.

I feel a hele of allot safer while Bush is in power, by the way, OBI when will gas prices start going down, that's why the war in Iraq was started.....RIGHT ;)