Dick Cheney goes over the line

[Mitchell]

Well, as I have stated on here before, the Bush and Dick administration will go to any length and say anything to keep their jobs. On Tuesday, Cheney really went overboard, essentially attempting to scare voters into voting for Bush and him by claiming that we will risk a terrorist attack if they are not in office.
This to me is nothing more than dirty politics, showing Cheney to not be the intelligent man he's supposed to be, or been hired to be, but rather showing him as little more then someone who will shoot his mouth off, and say anything to get people to believe what he wants them to believe. What Cheney did on Tuesday was a very, very dangerous tactic.
The article was posted on AOL, and to quote Cheney, he said that "It is absolutely essential that voters make the right choice in eight weeks from now, because if they make the wrong choice, they will run the risk of getting hit again"
What is Cheney suggesting? That John Kerry doesnt care about terrorism and will strive to make the United States less safe so that we will be hit again? This is outrageous. No president, be it Bush or Kerry, wants to set his country up to be hit by a terrorist. If Bush was so great, why didnt he take steps to prevent 9-11? Yesterday we had our 1000th soldier killed in Iraq, with over 800 of them dying since Mr Bush declared combat in Iraq over, and "mission accomplished" This is responsible leadership?
The bottom line is that Bush and Cheney will say and do anything to keep their jobs, even instill fear in voters to get them to sway their way. This to me is nothing more than dirty political manipulation. The rest of the challenge rests with the voters. If people want to believe this fear, they will vote Bush in November, if not, Kerry will win.
One final note: I heard commentary on TV yesterday that the 1000 mark of dead soldiers in Iraq could present a serious political problem to Bush. Yes, 1000 is a number, but it proves just how out of control this war is. The question now is whether Bush and Dick will be held responsible for their actions when we go to the polls in 8 weeks from now. The real key to this election will be undecided voters. Bush people will vote Bush no matter what, and Kerry people will vote Kerry no matter what. Ones who are still undecided should think very, very carefully about who to vote for in November. There will be so much at stake when we go to the polls this time, and we need to put it in perspective to understand just what the difference will be if George Bush is still president on January 20, then if John Kerry becomes president at that time.

Mitch
As a side note: I know you dont put much stock in polls, Ray, but 57% of the voters polled on AOL about this issue say that Cheney went over the line, while only 39% say he was right. That should say something about the magnitude of his comment, and the feelings of the people about it.

[the_Baron]

i, and many others i know, are concerned that a Kerry white house would show weekness and invite terrorism.

i don't see this as being an over-the-line comment with respect to an issue that is foremost in the minds of americans.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by the_Baron
i, and many others i know, are concerned that a Kerry white house would show weekness and invite terrorism.

i don't see this as being an over-the-line comment with respect to an issue that is foremost in the minds of americans.

I agree. a vote for kerry is a vote for weakness and terrorism.

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by maniactickler
I agree. a vote for kerry is a vote for weakness and terrorism.

I know you love this: Evidence, please.

If you're going to claim that I'm actually supporting terrorism because I support Kerry, you better be damn well prepared to back that claim up.

And when I say evidence, I mean actual, factual evidence, preferably supported by links to nonpartisan sites, rather than your usual course of hot air and opinion.

[the_Baron]

maniac shouldn't have to support his feelings and inclinations for believing Bush will provide greater security.

Thats how he feels based on a variety of things.....not necessarily something evidential.

[Shem the Penman]

Ah, okay. Me, if I was going to accuse someone of promoting terrorism, I'd have some actual reasoning behind it. But I know some people prefer to "think" with their emotions.

[Mitchell]

Well said, Shem, but I'm certain if I felt that Clinton or Kerry was better for terrorism, the Republican members of the forum would want me to back up my feelings with evidence. I guess any double standard can exist as long as you're either not Bill Clinton or John Kerry, or you dont support those men. Bush, Cheney, and their supporters can say anything they want. End of rant. Sigh!

Mitch

[venray]

No Mitch....If you felt Clinton or Kerry were good for terrorism, I would say the end of the world was here...

Having personal feelings about something is ok. Just note that many disregard one's personal feelings here...



Ray

[maniactickler]

Hey, if you want to vote for a guy who hates the military, cuts its budget, and cuts intelligence, go right ahead. ill personally feel much safer with bush at the helm.

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by maniactickler
Hey, if you want to vote for a guy who hates the military, cuts its budget, and cuts intelligence, go right ahead. ill personally feel much safer with bush at the helm.

Three claims presented as fact. No backup. Typical.

[venray]

Agreed. Where is your evidence that John Kerry hates the military?

Let's try that one for starters Maniac or cease throwing out crap to see what sticks to the wall....

Ray

[Cosmo_ac]

To be honest, the Bush company has been doing this all allong, just very subtly. DO you really think it's chance that Bush had his convention in NYC?

[maniactickler]

*unsubstantiated statements deleted*

[revolter]

I'm gonna say one thing, and one thing only, but I want you all to think about it for a minute, maybe even two:

When Clinton lied, nobody died.

End of story

[venray]

Bush didnt lie based on the intelligence reports ....and I take it as long as no one is killed it is ok to lie about adultery and other criminal acts even at the cost of someone elses reputation...ah...is this a typical liberal opinion or is it just yours revolter...?

Oh and what about when Kerry mentor Ted Kennedy lied all those years ago...did someone die then??