Vote For Bush or Die!

[LisaSt]

What a joke man that makes me laugh you better vote for us because we will keep you safe if not we will get attacked again is the jist of my interpretation on that. Great guarantee of safety according to that just reading that would make me vote for the other candidate for nothing else but to see them squirm LOL.


Darren

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Fair enough, ThAnswr. I'm not saying your vote should be based on something else. That's for you to decide and no one else. But in my opinion, Kerry's campaign needs to be based on something else.

I will agree with you, but the fact is a vote for George Bush is, at best, a vote for more of the same.

At worst, a vote for George Bush removes the brakes from the neo-cons and the country slides even further to the ideological rightwing. And that is going to affect everything from science, to foreign affairs, to who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

You (generic) may not like Kerry, but a vote for him will remove the neo-cons from the seat of power.

For me, that's enough. I'll take my chances with Kerry.

 

[TXTink]

Thank you for your great post we3luvdisney, but I am guessing that the damage is done. A few days ago the AP reported that when President Bush told a crowd that Clinton was in the hospital the crowed booed and the president did nothing to stop them.....it turned out the crowed was in awe and had reverence for the statement. Boy, did they get that wrong! They did correct the story a while later. The unenlightened will take this snippet of a quote and run with it because it is convenient. Very sad....

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by TXTink
Thank you for your great post we3luvdisney, but I am guessing that the damage is done. A few days ago the AP reported that when President Bush told a crowd that Clinton was in the hospital the crowed booed and the president did nothing to stop them.....it turned out the crowed was in awe and had reverence for the statement. Boy, did they get that wrong! They did correct the story a while later. The unenlightened will take this snippet of a quote and run with it because it is convenient. Very sad....

Doncha love it........the unenlightened. Good grief.

Here's something you might ponder:

1) if Cheney feels he's received a raw deal from the press, why isn't he out there explaining his remark instead of hiding somewhere.

2) Yesterday, Bush was asked specifically about Cheney's remarks and he said nothing.

End of story.

 

[disney4us2002]

Directly from Kerry's speech at the DNC (as posted on his site), "I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.

We will add 40,000 active duty troops – not in Iraq, but to strengthen American forces that are now overstretched, overextended, and under pressure. We will double our special forces to conduct anti-terrorist operations. We will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives – and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists."



With this reference in mind I have a few questions. "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Does that not sound reactionary to anyone? I don't want to wait for an attack; we were already attacked and lost more than 3000 lives. How many could the next attack kill? Not soldiers who volunteered to defend our country (God bless them!) but sitting ducks, people like my husband who did nothing but get up and go to work at the Pentagon that day. This is not a scare tactic; it is a real concern and it isn't only mine.

40,000 more troops and the latest weapons and technology sound kind of expensive. Where will that come from and why would I believe the military would get the newest weapons when as a senator Kerry voted against so many weapons and advanced military systems/helicopters, etc.?


Now to Cheney: "Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and 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're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us. "

Our current choice is between a mindset that views terrorism as a military problem and a 9/10 mindset that views terrorism as a limited problem best addressed by the criminal justice system. Cheney sees attacks as a military/war issue whereas he believes Kerry sees it the way Clinton did in the 90's as a criminal act. Why does it seems over-the-top for Cheney to state this position? It seems clear that Cheney is saying we face a fundamental policy choice as to how to deal with the threat of terrorism.

 

[septbride2002]

That's fine, but IMO, Kerry needs to give people reasons to vote FOR him in order to win. His campaign hasn't done such a great job at that to this point.

jrydberg I have to agree. Although I am uncomfortable with 4 more years of Bush - I wish that the Kerry campaign would do a better job with those that are undecided still.

With this reference in mind I have a few questions. "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." Does that not sound reactionary to anyone? I don't want to wait for an attack; we were already attacked and lost more than 3000 lives. How many could the next attack kill? Not soldiers who volunteered to defend our country (God bless them!) but sitting ducks, people like my husband who did nothing but get up and go to work at the Pentagon that day. This is not a scare tactic; it is a real concern and it isn't only mine.

I agree we should always be concerned about terrorism and should do everything in our power to prevent it. What I don't agree with is how Bush and Cheney have handled it so far. JMHO

~Amanda

 

[Chicago526]

I've read the "snipped" version and the full version of the quote. What I got out of it was that if we elect Kerry, will WILL be attacked. The part that was snipped out, doesn't really explain away or alter the meaning of the first part of the quote.

Look, I'm a Dem and would vote for Kerry anyway, even if 9/11 and the war in Iraq hadn't ever taken place. But this, to me, just shows how far Bush and the Reps will go to win an election.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by ThAnswr


Let's carry it one step further..........those criminal investigations are going to require international cooperation and George Bush has burned those bridges. That's why we're less safe.

no such bridges have been burned, yes we did not have full support for going into Iraq, but the investigations are still ongoing with full support and cooperation from other countries...

 

[peachgirl]

I don't want to wait for an attack

What's your suggestion? That we go in and bomb countries that have yet to do anything to us?

Oh wait, we already did that...Iraq....

The unenlightened will take this snippet of a quote and run with it because it is convenient.

Yeah, if I'd just take a sip of that kool-aid, I could become one of the "enlightened" ones too. "Enlightenment", in the context you use it sounds an awful lot like brainwashed.

As one of the unenlightened ( I prefer clear headed though), I'm perfectly willing to take the complete text of what he said. No matter what spin you put on it, he said what he said. If we make "the wrong choice", we will be attacked. Interestingly enough, the right wing guru Ann Coulter happens to agree with the left on what Cheney said.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by Pugsley
Oh, please tell me that there are some Bush/Cheney supporters who can admit that Cheney’s statement was completely unacceptable. That statement is indefensible. It is a lie and a scare tactic. We ARE going to get again regardless of who is in office. And how does he explain that we got hit the first time when Bush was in office? Was that Bush’s fault? It sickens me to see that there are so many people who think tactics like that are OK. Regardless of who you support, is it not possible to look at things objectively and admit it when your party is wrong?

the statement is not a lie,,Kerry has said numerous times that he will defend the US if attacked,,,

when has he said he will continue to go after terrorists outside the US...???

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
the statement is not a lie,,Kerry has said numerous times that he will defend the US if attacked,,,

when has he said he will continue to go after terrorists outside the US...???

And that is the difference. It appears Kerry will wait until we are attacked before he does anything.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by ThAnswr
During this war in Iraq:

*1005 American soldiers are dead

* nearly 7000 have been wounded (1100 in August 2004)

* and the cost to the American taxpayer is over 200 billion dollars
(only 198 billion more than the administration said it would cost)

and some worry about ketchup.

And for the soldiers on the ground in Iraq, the 1005 dead only strenghtens their resolve to bring security over there.

Some perspective:

1005: Soldiers killed in Iraq
2403: Americans killed at Pearl Harbor
2976: Americans lost on 9/11
9,386: American soldiers killed taking Normandy (one day)
12,500: American soldiers killed taking Okinawa in WW2
24,000: American soldiers on both sides killed at the battle of Antietam during the Civil War
54,246: American troops killed in Korea
58,198: American soldiers killed in Vietnam
116,516: American soldiers killed in World War 1
133,811: Confederate troops killed in the Civil War
295,000: American soldiers killed in World War 2
364,511: Union Soldiers killed during the Civil War

 

[dsnylvr]

Originally posted by disney4us2002

Our current choice is between a mindset that views terrorism as a military problem and a 9/10 mindset that views terrorism as a limited problem best addressed by the criminal justice system. Cheney sees attacks as a military/war issue whereas he believes Kerry sees it the way Clinton did in the 90's as a criminal act. Why does it seems over-the-top for Cheney to state this position? It seems clear that Cheney is saying we face a fundamental policy choice as to how to deal with the threat of terrorism. [/B]

ITA thanks Carla, you worded it perfectly.

Sean

I will be voting for Bush.

 

[dmadman43]

Isn't it funny that the two men who made every effort not to fight in a war are so eager to send other people's sons to war?

Why do you have to bring up FDR or Abraham Lincoln?

 

[peachgirl]

when has he said he will continue to go after terrorists outside the US...???

He's said it over and over again...

I will not hesitate to order direct military action when needed to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders.

I will strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home and forge stronger international coalitions to provide better information and the best chance to target and capture terrorists even before they act.

we will impose tough financial sanctions against nations or banks that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it. We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. And if they do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.

Directing Military Action to Destroy and Disrupt Terrorist Networks:
Under John Kerry’s leadership, American military operations will be precise and deadly.Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction Out of Terrorist Hands. John Kerry and John Edwards will launch a new initiative to prevent the world's deadliest weapons from falling into the world's most dangerous hands. They have a plan to secure vulnerable bomb-making materials, prevent the production of new materials for nuclear weapons, and work to end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states like North Korea and Iran.

Strengthening America’s Intelligence Capabilities:
John Kerry and John Edwards will restore the credibility of our intelligence community, strengthen accountability and leadership by creating a true Director of National Intelligence, maximize coordination and integration of resources and information, and transform our intelligence services to deal with today’s threats.

Leading Relentless Efforts to Shut Down the Flow of Terrorist Funds:
America will crack down on nations or banks that fail to act against money laundering by strengthening our anti-money laundering laws and imposing tough financial sanctions against violators.

Preventing New Terrorist Havens:
John Kerry and John Edwards will work with our allies and the international community to stabilize and secure Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that these newly freed nations and other weak states around the world do not become havens for terrorists.

Preventing Recruitment of New Terrorists:
John Kerry and John Edwards will work to win the war of ideas and the future of a young generation with a strategy to break down economic and cultural isolation in Arab and Muslim countries and support local efforts to promote democracy, trade, tolerance, and respect for human rights. The strategy includes a major initiative in public diplomacy and an international effort to improve education.

It would be nice if we could cut all the details down to 10 words or less, but it's more complicated than "bring it on"....

 

[TXTink]

What Cheney said was not smart, that is for sure, because it gave a wonderful sound bite that opens the door for people to draw silly conclusions like he said "Vote for Bush or Die". I think we3luvdisney explained it quite well in his/her post as to the true content and message he was giving. It was a misstep on Cheney's part, that is true. But, in the end, it will change nothing. If someone is going to change their vote on this, it is simply pathetic. I would encourage them to look into the speeches and statements of the Presidential candidates themselves and vote the way that aligns with their personal beliefs. Then, their vote will be an enlightened one.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by peachgirl
He's said it over and over again...













It would be nice if we could cut all the details down to 10 words or less, but it's more complicated than "bring it on"....

these are all things the current administration is already doing...sounds like Kerry agrees with Bush..

 

[Fizban257]

Originally posted by Chicago526
I've read the "snipped" version and the full version of the quote. What I got out of it was that if we elect Kerry, will WILL be attacked.

You're right. Cheney did mean to say that we WILL be attacked if we elect Kerry. He also clearly means that we WILL be attacked if we elect Bush. I'm an editor by trade and I'm working on my PhD in English Lit; parsing texts is what I do. Cheney was clearly saying that "the danger is we'll be attacked" and that THEN a President Kerry will treat the attack as a criminal matter rather than an act of war. The AP's selective reporting clearly distorts the meaning of the sentence and is improper editing technique. In context, Cheney is clearly arguing against the danger of Kerry's mode of reaction to a future attack not intimating that the fact of Kerry's election will CAUSE an attack. Taken out of context I can quote Kerry's speech from midnight after the close of the Republican Convention where he clearly says, "...you go vote for George W. Bush..." That's what he said, but not what he means or advocates; editors are supposed to know better.

 

[peachgirl]

these are all things the current administration is already doing

Hardly...his lone cowboy attitude is just the first of many things he is doing differently.

 

[peachgirl]

It could be cleared up very simply if Cheney would simply come out and say that he did not mean that we are more likely to be attacked if Kerry is elected President.


I'm pretty sure he wasn't directing his comments to those who have PhD's in English Lit. He was directing them at those who they hope will fall for scare tactics and couching his words in such a way that he can claim plausible deniability.