9/8/04, Cheney: Vote for Kerry & "the danger is that we'll get hit again"

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Cheney: Kerry Victory Is Risky
Democrats Decry Talk as Scare Tactic

By Dana Milbank and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 8, 2004; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2917-2004Sep7.html

COLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 -- Vice President Cheney warned on Tuesday that if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists, as the Bush campaign escalated a furious assault on the Democratic presidential nominee that has kept Kerry from gaining control of the election debate.

In Des Moines, Cheney went beyond previous restraints to suggest that the country would be more vulnerable to attack under Kerry. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again," the vice president said, "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 are not really at war."

In Missouri, meanwhile, President Bush seized on Kerry's statement Monday that Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," noting that Kerry had borrowed the words of his former rival Howard Dean. Kerry "woke up yesterday morning with yet another new position, and this one is not even his own," Bush said to laughter from supporters during a three-city Missouri bus tour. ". . . He even used the same words Howard Dean did, back when he supposedly disagreed with him. No matter how many times Senator Kerry flip-flops, we were right to make America safer by removing Saddam Hussein from power."

The Kerry campaign called Cheney's allegation "un-American" and said Bush would not be able to "distract the American people" from problems in Iraq and with the U.S. economy. But in a tacit acknowledgment that Kerry has had difficulty presenting a convincing critique of Bush, Kerry aides are promising a major new front in Kerry's stepped-up attack on Bush's policies beginning Wednesday: a series of speeches laying out the administration's "miscalculations" in taking the nation to war in Iraq.

[kerrygoddess]

1. Old News. N/T

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. Yeah, old news, but the bike ride made me reflect on it.

You know, the fact that we haven't been "hit again," obviously the result of Bush's "protection."

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Yep

I know what you mean. I thought about that too. Protecting us well isn't he?

[kliljedahl]

3. I voted for Kerry, it hasn't happened

SO THERE!

Keith’s Barbeque Central

[madmom]

4. it was probably true because..

if Kerry would have won they would have made it true.Anything for the party ya know!

[blm]

5. What's glaring in the article is the reporters don't challenge any lie or

trumped up assertion made by Bush, Cheney or their campaign.

They accept Bush's version of spin against Kerry without noting that Kerry was always consistent in his position that Bush RUSHED to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their job, which would have proved there was no NEED to invade.

Kerry was for the war IF necessary. Since, by Sept. 2004, no WMDs had turned up, it was obvious there was no NEED to invade Iraq. Why didn't the reporters counter Bush's lies and spin at that point?

[ragin_acadian]

6. i'm surprised that no one has mentioned that we got hit the first

time on shrub and cheney's watch.

that would have been my oh-so analytical reply.

or maybe what cheney meant to say is: "if you elect john kerry, my pnac buddies and i will get osama to hit america again"