Dude can't be serious

Johno Johno

When Dick Cheney says...

"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."

... is he really saying "vote for us or I give some jihadist fanatics the keys to the cabinet with the big red button?"

Because that interpretation is no more stupid than what I think he really means. Honestly... crap like this is enough to drive a sane man to vote Kerry.

Posted by Johno Johno on   |   § 11

§ 11 Comments

2

Hey - consider an alternate view of reality. Perhaps he's serious, but he's just full of shit?

Unless we're counting on the Prez and the VP to personally protect us from all the evil in the world, Dick's protestations are pretty rich.

No matter how much of a pantywaist Kerry might turn out to be, I fail to see how he can completely destroy the country's defenses, at least not during his first term.

BTW: I believe that Bush will be tougher on our enemies than Kerry, and I believe that's necessary. I also believe that there's a lot more to the mechanics of how it's all done than Dick's letting on. In fact, I know it.

Patton Patton

5

Patton,
Thanks for the pointer! I think very highly of Mr. Totten. However, though I agree with him that the uncut quote reads better, I still think the full version of what Cheney said is lame and inflammatory. I have seen no evidence that we'd (the government'd) revert to some magical pre-9/11 of the mind if Kerry were elected. He's been pimping different strategies, not peacenikkery.

And it would be nice if a new prez were to, say, be scared gormless into actually, you know, dealing with Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Yemen, Israel/Palestine, Egypt, Somalia, etc. choose yr poison, where the real actual terrorist threats fricking lie. I'm not pushing full-scale war, but something would be nice. Iraq has sucked the wind out of the (rest of the?????) war on terror (if in fact Iraq is part of the main war on terror, prove me wrong children, and with more than hints, meetings, and checks written to inviduals), and for that reason if for no other, Dick Cheney can suck it.

Johno Johno

7

I agree with Totten that this is a lot less inflamatory. The question is not merely whether we respond to an attack, but how. Responding as if it were a law enforcement issue is indeed a pre 9/11 mindset, and not an unreasonable criticism of Kerry. A reactive policy toward terrorism would give the terrorists a free shot at civilian targets. Preemption is necessary (and has much precedent in military history) and Totten is also right that at least Bush is looking at "root causes" by attempting a transformational policy in the middle east.

Buckethead Buckethead

8

Totten's">http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000501.html]Totten's post on September 6 is also worth noting. There is a fundamental lack of seriousness on national security issues here. Kerry says he'd have done it better, but he has yet to explain how. Aside from vague canards about involving our allies. Which would certainly sour the US' relationships with such pissant countries as Britain, Australia, Italy and Poland should Kerry become president.

Buckethead Buckethead

11

I meant that, too. She's one step from certifiable, but one step from on the nose too. While I'm not sure the New York Times is the place for her, I'm glad she has a place to publish. Good old 1910s style muckracking in a 2000s package.

Johno Johno

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]