PDA

View Full Version : Cheney: Kerry Victory Would Bring a terrorist Attack...


dirk digler
09-07-2004, 03:23 PM
Whether or not you like or dislike Kerry I think this is way over the line IMO. Have soon they forget that we lost 3000 US citizens on their watch. Digusting. They may lose my vote because of this.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V15AG0.html

Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry
Email this Story

Sep 7, 3:57 PM (ET)

By AMY LORENTZEN

(AP) Vice President Dick Cheney speaks to supporters during a town hall meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004...
Full Image


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick 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.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"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," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

(AP) Vice President Dick Cheney speaks to supporters as he sits with his wife Lynne during a town hall...
Full Image
Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

Edwards added that he and Kerry "will keep American safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.

the Talking Can
09-07-2004, 03:45 PM
outrageous.....just ****ing outrageous

shamelessly co-opting 9/11 to scare the shit out of us....I give up on this election, if this is what people want from their leaders than they can have it.....that mother ****er has reservations in Hades, though, count on that....

non-republicans are un-American and will sit by why American is over run....there's their party platform....

Gunther fan tells that liberals are happy when Americans die and now The VP of the US is telling us we'll be attacked if we don't vote republican....what a great day, I'm so proud of my country right now...really....

memyselfI
09-07-2004, 03:45 PM
:shake: he must have insider info.

Cochise
09-07-2004, 03:48 PM
Where does cheney say that?


"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," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.


He says that making the wrong choice will be more dangerous.

I think he and other conservatives would all agree that a sKerry presidency would not protect us as well against another attack. So what's the big deal?

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 03:52 PM
Yeah, I can't find where Cheney says that either...

Of course, if Cheney's saying that Kerry believes that the threat of terrorism is "exaggerated" or that the war on terror is "primarily a law enforcement issue" then he's right...those are Kerry's stated positions.

I understand it might be hard to believe...Tim Russert had to ask him five times if he really thought the war on terror was a law enforcement issue and he still couldn't believe the response.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 03:53 PM
Where does cheney say that?



He says that making the wrong choice will be more dangerous.

I think he and other conservatives would all agree that a sKerry presidency would not protect us as well against another attack. So what's the big deal?


I would point to where he says, and I am paraphrasing him, if you don't vote for Bush/Cheney we will be attacked.

That's BS and you know it.

What happens if we get attacked between now and the elections do Bush and Cheney then withdraw from the race because they failed to protect us?

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 03:56 PM
outrageous.....just ****ing outrageous

shamelessly co-opting 9/11 to scare the shit out of us....I give up on this election, if this is what people want from their leaders than they can have it.....that mother ****er has reservations in Hades, though, count on that....


Right next to Hitler according to prominent Democrats. ;)

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:01 PM
I would point to where he says, and I am paraphrasing him, if you don't vote for Bush/Cheney we will be attacked.

That's BS and you know it.

What happens if we get attacked between now and the elections do Bush and Cheney then withdraw from the race because the failed to protect us?


Where does he say if you don't vote for Bush/Cheney we will be attacked?

Listen, I don't think either Bush or Cheney have to go near the whole "we're better at protecting you" angle because a) the majority of Americans already believe that without being told, b) we could get hit tomorrow and besides being a tragedy it damage their campaign (as Dirk points out), and c) it sounds about as good politically as if Kerry started talking about how he would have responded just as well as Bush after 9/11. Maybe he would have, but standing up saying how much of a hero you are isn't the best way to get votes.

Just ask John Kerry.

I know liberals are going to be hopping mad over this comment, but unfortunately your guy's on tape saying things like the war on terror is "exaggerated" and the war on terror he would wage would be "sensitive" and the war on terror is "primarily a law enforcement issue". But the fact that liberals are going to be upset about it should get the media printing some more headlines like the one you erroneously attributed to Cheney.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:03 PM
Jesus Christ. That's fugging disgusting.

These guys will do or say anything to retain power.

Governing by fear.

:shake:

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:05 PM
Jesus Christ. That's fugging disgusting.

These guys will do or say anything to retain power.

Governing by fear.

:shake:


Democrats make such great victims.

Maybe this will turn the tide in your guy's favor Jaz! :thumb:

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:06 PM
Democrats make such great victims.

Maybe this will turn the tide in your guy's favor Jaz! :thumb:
You will defend anything.

:shake:

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:07 PM
And Fox News keeps the fear mongering going.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131692,00.html

Cheney: Terror Attack if Kerry Elected

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:11 PM
You will defend anything.

:shake:


ROFL ROFL ROFL

I said it was stupid and unnecessary to say it. I said it might give your guy an opening. The only thing I'm defending is that your guy has said that he doesn't think the war on terror is really much of a war on several occasions.

If you want to post one of your 10,000 word essays on what he meant when he said that he agreed that the war on terror was "exaggerated" or what he meant when he said it was "primarily a law enforcement issue" then knock yourself out. But for the record I think what Cheney said was politically not very wise.

jettio
09-07-2004, 04:13 PM
I think BushCheney is afraid to have a lead in the polls and are trying their best to get it back to even ASAP.

They must be concerned about depressing turnout, because they already have a kung fu death grip lock on the scared of terrorist puzzussy vote as evidenced by this forum.

Saying un-American and hateful stuff like that hurts them with voters that are not puzzies and understand that AMERICA is a non-partisan issue.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:14 PM
And Fox News keeps the fear mongering going.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131692,00.html


Don't worry Jaz, I'm sure this will backfire...

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:16 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL
You have gone from a mere propagandist to downright shameful.

Donger
09-07-2004, 04:16 PM
While Cheney didn'y say what is in the headline, it sure is implied.

It's stupid; politically and otherwise.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 04:17 PM
Where does he say if you don't vote for Bush/Cheney we will be attacked?

Listen, I don't think either Bush or Cheney have to go near the whole "we're better at protecting you" angle because a) the majority of Americans already believe that without being told, b) we could get hit tomorrow and besides being a tragedy it damage their campaign (as Dirk points out), and c) it sounds about as good politically as if Kerry started talking about how he would have responded just as well as Bush after 9/11. Maybe he would have, but standing up saying how much of a hero you are isn't the best way to get votes.

Just ask John Kerry.

I know liberals are going to be hopping mad over this comment, but unfortunately your guy's on tape saying things like the war on terror is "exaggerated" and the war on terror he would wage would be "sensitive" and the war on terror is "primarily a law enforcement issue". But the fact that liberals are going to be upset about it should get the media printing some more headlines like the one you erroneously attributed to Cheney.


RL, you seem to be a pretty smart guy so I don't know why I should have to explain this to you. He said
"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"
What do you honestly think he meant by that? Anyone with half a brain knows what he is talking about. Get real.
BTW, I am not a liberal I am just mad because this is the lowest attack I have heard yet. Vote for us or you will die! FUG OFF CHENEY! I like Bush but this guy is a turd.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 04:18 PM
While Cheney didn'y say what is in the headline, it sure is implied.

It's stupid; politically and otherwise.

Donger you get rep from me because of that. Finally someone who can think for themselves.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:18 PM
You have gone from a mere propagandist to downright shameful.


ROFL ROFL ROFL

You're just jealous...

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:19 PM
RL, you seem to be a pretty smart guy so I don't know why I should have to explain this to you. He said
"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"
What do you honestly think he meant by that? Anyone with half a brain knows what he is talking about. Get real.
BTW, I am not a liberal I am just mad because this is the lowest attack I have heard yet. Vote for us or you will die! FUG OFF CHENEY! I like Bush but this guy is a turd.


And, for the third time, I think it was unnecessary and stupid.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 04:23 PM
And, for the third time, I think it was unnecessary and stupid.

Cool. Now answer this question that I asked earlier. Going on the premise that Cheney stated in his speech should GWB/Cheney withdraw from the race if their is another terrorist attack before the election?

I know they won't but should they?

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:24 PM
While Cheney didn'y say what is in the headline, it sure is implied.

It's stupid; politically and otherwise.
It's more than just stupid. And it's the "otherwise" that is most noteworthy.

This is what the Bush campaign has been trying to do in a more subtle way for the last 4 years. They fear monger in order to implement their agenda. They fear monger in order to control the media. They fear monger in order to get re-elected.

This is the most blatant example of the Rove Fear Machine in action, but it's not even close to the first.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:25 PM
Cool. Now answer this question that I asked earlier. Going on the premise that Cheney stated in his speech should GWB/Cheney withdraw from the race if their is another terrorist attack before the election?

I know they won't but should they?


I think I agreed with you in my first response to your post...I even mentioned you by name!

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:26 PM
It's more than just stupid. And it's the "otherwise" that is most noteworthy.

This is what the Bush campaign has been trying to do in a more subtle way for the last 4 years. They fear monger in order to implement their agenda. They fear monger in order to control the media. They fear monger in order to get re-elected.

This is the most blatant example of the Rove Fear Machine in action, but it's not even close to the first.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials




Oh man...Jaz is quoting Nazis again...

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:26 PM
And, for the third time, I think it was unnecessary and stupid.
Saying 3 times in a row that you think its a "stupid" and "unnecessary" move politically means what exactly?

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:26 PM
Oh man...Jaz is quoting Nazis again...
The Bush administration is following the Nazi lead again.

Donger
09-07-2004, 04:27 PM
It's more than just stupid. And it's the "otherwise" that is most noteworthy.

This is what the Bush campaign has been trying to do in a more subtle way for the last 4 years. They fear monger in order to implement their agenda. They fear monger in order to control the media. They fear monger in order to get re-elected.

This is the most blatant example of the Rove Fear Machine in action, but it's not even close to the first.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg trials



Yeah, jAZ. We all know that Rove is the real POTUS, and that Bush and Cheney are just willing puppets...

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:28 PM
The Bush administration is following the Nazi lead again.


:clap:

:thumb:

ROFL

Maybe this is why Cheney said it...to get Kerry to come out and hold another midnight press conference...

FringeNC
09-07-2004, 04:29 PM
It's rather a simple point Cheney was making. Given that Bush has a reputation as being more ruthless in his strategy of fighting terrorism, it's almost certain that terrorist would attempt to test the resolve of Kerry. Reputation matters. Similar to Iran giving the hostages up when Reagan was elected. They wanted no part of him. What's the big deal? Should Cheney lie, and say the country would be equally safe if Kerry was elected?

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 04:30 PM
I think I agreed with you in my first response to your post...I even mentioned you by name!


I feel so special. :p Anyway, you really didn't answer my question a yes or no should suffice.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:31 PM
Saying 3 times in a row that you think its a "stupid" and "unnecessary" move politically means what exactly?


That it doesn't help him get re-elected.

Kind of like Kerry's speech last Thursday night.



This coming from the guy who thought "Clintonista" was comparing a former president to terrorists.

ROFL

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 04:33 PM
The Bush administration is following the Nazi lead again.



Really? How many Jews have we sent to the gas chambers the past 3 1/2 years?

Equating GW and Naziís is the most retarded argument I've ever seen. It takes a real moron, (I mean the dumbest f^cktard imaginable) to equate the two. Even if you are just trying to get under someoneís skin, it is low class and just plain stupid.

It's as stupid as Sapp equating millionaire football players to slaves. It degrades those that were actually affected.

I guess the immoral left could care less about slaves or the Jews.

jettio
09-07-2004, 04:33 PM
It's rather a simple point Cheney was making. Given that Bush has a reputation as being more ruthless in his strategy of fighting terrorism, it's almost certain that terrorist would attempt to test the resolve of Kerry. Reputation matters. Similar to Iran giving the hostages up when Reagan was elected. They wanted no part of him. What's the big deal? Should Cheney lie, and say the country would be equally safe if Kerry was elected?

Ruthless---Being too much of a puzzussy to use special forces at Tora Bora and bribing Afghani warlords instead, and who then take bribes from Bin laden and allow him free passage.

FYI, Bin Laden is the head of the organization that planned and executed 9/11.

Reputation matters, yours is as a Blind Bush apologist.

FringeNC
09-07-2004, 04:37 PM
Ruthless---Being too much of a puzzussy to use special forces at Tora Bora and bribing Afghani warlords instead, and who then take bribes from Bin laden and allow him free passage.

FYI, Bin Laden is the head of the organization that planned and executed 9/11.

Reputation matters, yours is as a Blind Bush apologist.

Oh yeah...forgot that you were an expert game theorist in addition to be an attorney. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists and their state sponsors are hoping for a Kerry victory.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:38 PM
Really? How many Jews have we sent to the gas chambers the past 3 1/2 years?

Equating GW and Naziís is the most retarded argument I've ever seen. It takes a real moron, (I mean the dumbest f^cktard imaginable) to equate the two. Even if you are just trying to get under someoneís skin, it is low class and just plain stupid.

It's as stupid as Sapp equating millionaire football players to slaves. It degrades those that were actually affected.

I guess the immoral left could care less about slaves or the Jews.
They follow the fear mongering political tactics used by the Nazi regime. What they do with those tactics are different. But that doesn't make the tactics dissimilar.

FringeNC
09-07-2004, 04:40 PM
They follow the fear mongering political tactics used by the Nazi regime. What they do with those tactics are different. But that doesn't make the tactics dissimilar.

You mean kinda like when they have Ed Asner call senile old ****ers in Florida and tell them Jeb Bush is going to cut their SS benefits?

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 04:41 PM
They follow the fear mongering political tactics used by the Nazi regime. What they do with those tactics are different. But that doesn't make the tactics dissimilar.


You're retarded. As a matter of fact, you're too retarded to smack around in here anymore.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:42 PM
I feel so special. :p Anyway, you really didn't answer my question a yes or no should suffice.


That Bush and Cheney should resign or be removed from office if there's another attack? Absolutely not. It was a campaign speech. A stupid campaign speech, but still just a campaign speech. I don't care who the president is - outside of deriliction of duty I wouldn't want to empower the terrorist by starting impeachment proceedings whenever there is a terrorist attack. That would be stupid.

BTW, does anyone have a transcript of his full speech?

Donger
09-07-2004, 04:42 PM
They follow the fear mongering political tactics used by the Nazi regime.

Are you referring to the Republicans or Democrats?

If you are referring to the Republicans, would you agree that Democrats also employ "fear-mongering political tactics?"

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:44 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists and their state sponsors are hoping for a Kerry victory.
That's odd... that's not what the terrorists themselves say.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush
Thursday, March 18, 2004

(snip)
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.
(snip)

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:44 PM
Ruthless---Being too much of a puzzussy to use special forces at Tora Bora and bribing Afghani warlords instead, and who then take bribes from Bin laden and allow him free passage.

FYI, Bin Laden is the head of the organization that planned and executed 9/11.

Reputation matters, yours is as a Blind Bush apologist.


Did you read Tommy Franks book about what happened at Tora Bora?

Do you think you or he would have a better understanding of what happened at Tora Bora?

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 04:45 PM
That Bush and Cheney should resign or be removed from office if there's another attack? Absolutely not. It was a campaign speech. A stupid campaign speech, but still just a campaign speech. I don't care who the president is - outside of deriliction of duty I wouldn't want to empower the terrorist by starting impeachment proceedings whenever there is a terrorist attack. That would be stupid.

BTW, does anyone have a transcript of his full speech?


Fair enough. But I wasn't asking them to resign or be impeached. Just withdraw from the election for failing to protect the American public.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:46 PM
Are you referring to the Republicans or Democrats?

If you are referring to the Republicans, would you agree that Democrats also employ "fear-mongering political tactics?"
No, I've never seen ANYTHING like what this administration has done over the last 4 years.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:47 PM
They follow the fear mongering political tactics used by the Nazi regime. What they do with those tactics are different. But that doesn't make the tactics dissimilar.


Hopefully John Kerry will go with this strategy...maybe you could give him a call and clue him in on your wise understanding of the world.

He's already stood behind John Glenn when he compared the Republicans to Nazis...

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:47 PM
Fair enough. But I wasn't asking them to resign or be impeached. Just withdraw from the election for failing to protect the American public.
RINGLEADER is really good at that game, isn't he?

Donger
09-07-2004, 04:47 PM
That's odd... that's not what the terrorists themselves say.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush
Thursday, March 18, 2004

(snip)
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.
(snip)

ROFL

Where's that skepticism, jAZ?

Beyond the obvious (that Fox News is a Bush propaganda outlet), are you incapable of entertaining they possibilty that the naughty terrorists might be playing reverse psychology.... and you're buying it?

Pretty amusing that you're skeptical of Fox News, yet openly believe what terrorists say as being factual and true, ain't it?

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:48 PM
Did you read Tommy Franks book about what happened at Tora Bora?
Did you?

FringeNC
09-07-2004, 04:48 PM
That's odd... that's not what the terrorists themselves say.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush
Thursday, March 18, 2004

<snip>
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.
<snip>

Hhmmm...seems very inconsistent with attacking Spain in order to help out the socialists....wouldn't they want a right-winger in Spain, also? I'll view their actions rather than their statements as an indicator of their desires.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:48 PM
That's odd... that's not what the terrorists themselves say.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush
Thursday, March 18, 2004

(snip)
The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.
(snip)


Keep 'em coming Jaz...this is a riot!!!

ROFL ROFL ROFL

jettio
09-07-2004, 04:48 PM
Did you read Tommy Franks book about what happened at Tora Bora?

Do you think you or he would have a better understanding of what happened at Tora Bora?

No I did not read it. what was his self interested explanation?

Donger
09-07-2004, 04:49 PM
No, I've never seen ANYTHING like what this administration has done over the last 4 years.

For instance?

Put up a list of comparison, I dare you...

Both sides utilize fear in order to get votes. I don't like it, but both sides do it.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:49 PM
Fair enough. But I wasn't asking them to resign or be impeached. Just withdraw from the election for failing to protect the American public.


Same response.

Listen, I may not be the most articulate person but I was really trying to agree with you in my first response to this...I was just giving the American people proper credit for sniffing out BS.

It's all good! :thumb:

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:50 PM
No, I've never seen ANYTHING like what this administration has done over the last 4 years.


I didn't know you were blind.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:50 PM
ROFL

Where's that skepticism, jAZ?

Beyond the obvious (that Fox News is a Bush propaganda outlet), are you incapable of entertaining they possibilty that the naughty terrorists might be playing reverse psychology.... and you're buying it?

Pretty amusing that you're skeptical of Fox News, yet openly believe what terrorists say as being factual and true, ain't it?
It's more concrete than FringeNC's speculation. Given that it's the WORDS OF A FREAKIN TERRORIST!

Donger
09-07-2004, 04:51 PM
It's more concrete than FringeNC's speculation. Given that it's the WORDS OF A FREAKIN TERRORIST!

What?

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:52 PM
RINGLEADER is really good at that game, isn't he?


Hey, at least I answered his question.

At least I didn't disappear like some people I know... :rolleyes:

NewChief
09-07-2004, 04:52 PM
Good lord, Cheney just can't seem to get a break PR-wise.

Halliburton finally loses their contract in Iraq, putting that baby to bed for him....then he goes out and sticks his foot in his mouth.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:53 PM
Same response.

Listen, I may not be the most articulate person but I was really trying to agree with you in my first response to this...I was just giving the American people proper credit for sniffing out BS.

It's all good! :thumb:
RINGLEADER is very careful.

Same response =


That Bush and Cheney should resign or be removed from office if there's another attack? Absolutely not. It was a campaign speech. A stupid campaign speech, but still just a campaign speech. I don't care who the president is - outside of deriliction of duty I wouldn't want to empower the terrorist by starting impeachment proceedings whenever there is a terrorist attack. That would be stupid.

BTW, does anyone have a transcript of his full speech?
"Same response" is his slick way of not answering your direct question AGAIN. Instead relying on his reworded question/answer.

He pulls this crap ALL THE TIME.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:53 PM
Did you?


Nope. Never claimed I did. But then again I'm not the one who's saying that his strategy there was F'd up. I have seen interviews with him where he says quite clearly that there was no indication that they had bin Laden cornered in any way at Tora Bora.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:53 PM
Hey, at least I answered his question.
No you didn't.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:54 PM
Nope.
I didn't think you had.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:55 PM
No I did not read it. what was his self interested explanation?


So how do you know what happened at Tora Bora? Were you there? Or were you just pulling the Dem talking points off of JohnKerry.com again?

jettio
09-07-2004, 04:55 PM
Oh yeah...forgot that you were an expert game theorist in addition to be an attorney. There is no doubt in my mind that terrorists and their state sponsors are hoping for a Kerry victory.

Your mind is free of a lot of things.

Probably too preoccupied with ignorant devotion to the guy who made all of your pre-Iraq arguments way of the mark.

go back in the archives and read how wrong you were.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:56 PM
So how do you know what happened at Tora Bora? Were you there? Or were you just pulling the Dem talking points off of JohnKerry.com again?
ROFL

Didn't read Tommy Franks book.

Wasn't at Tora Bora.

Calling people out for "pulling" talking points.


ROFL

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:57 PM
RINGLEADER is very careful.

Same response =


"Same response" is his slick way of not answering your direct question AGAIN. Instead relying on his reworded question/answer.

He pulls this crap ALL THE TIME.


Good God Jaz, I'm "very careful"? I'm "slick".

I'm not giving a frickin' deposition in a murder case... ROFL

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 04:59 PM
ROFL

Didn't read Tommy Franks book.

Wasn't at Tora Bora.

Calling people out for "pulling" talking points.

ROFL


I love it when you laugh at yourself Jaz ;)

jAZ
09-07-2004, 04:59 PM
Good God Jaz, I'm "very careful"? I'm "slick".

I'm not giving a frickin' deposition in a murder case... ROFL
But you are trying to toe the line between liar and merely a propagandist.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 04:59 PM
RINGLEADER is very careful.

Same response =


"Same response" is his slick way of not answering your direct question AGAIN. Instead relying on his reworded question/answer.

He pulls this crap ALL THE TIME.

I just want a yes or no answer. Fringe, Donger, JAZ, can you answer this honestly?

Should Bush/Cheney withdraw from the election if there is another terrorist attack in the next 2 months?

Donger
09-07-2004, 05:02 PM
Should Bush/Cheney withdraw from the election if there is another terrorist attack in the next 2 months?

No.

No more than FDR should have because of the Battle of the Bulge.

Donger
09-07-2004, 05:04 PM
Hey, jAZ?

I'm still trying to figure out why you gave Fox News as a source? You've got them on your skepticism list, yet you provide them as a source for the "Terrorists want Bush re-elected" piece?

What are we to think?

jAZ
09-07-2004, 05:06 PM
I just want a yes or no answer. Fringe, Donger, JAZ, can you answer this honestly?

Should Bush/Cheney withdraw from the election if there is another terrorist attack in the next 2 months?
No, they shouldn't widthdrawl from the election if there is another terroist attack in the next 2 months.

I personally think they should widthdrawl form the election because of everything they've failed to do effectively over the last 4 years. But that's another question.

jettio
09-07-2004, 05:07 PM
So how do you know what happened at Tora Bora? Were you there? Or were you just pulling the Dem talking points off of JohnKerry.com again?

No I posted articles about that ages ago.


U.S. Concludes Bin Laden Escaped at Tora Bora Fight
Failure to Send Troops in Pursuit Termed Major Error

By Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 17, 2002; Page A01

The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border. Though there remains a remote chance that he died there, the intelligence community is persuaded that bin Laden slipped away in the first 10 days of December.

After-action reviews, conducted privately inside and outside the military chain of command, describe the episode as a significant defeat for the United States. A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader. Without professing second thoughts about Tora Bora, Franks has changed his approach fundamentally in subsequent battles, using Americans on the ground as first-line combat units.

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. "No one had the big picture," one defense official said.

The Bush administration has never acknowledged that bin Laden slipped through the cordon ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on Nov. 30. Until now it was not known publicly whether the al Qaeda leader was present on the battlefield.

But inside the government there is little controversy on the subject. Captured al Qaeda fighters, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts describing an address by bin Laden around Dec. 3 to mujaheddin, or holy warriors, dug into the warren of caves and tunnels built as a redoubt against Soviet invaders in the 1980s. One official said "we had a good piece of sigint," or signals intelligence, confirming those reports.

"I don't think you can ever say with certainty, but we did conclude he was there, and that conclusion has strengthened with time," said another official, giving an authoritative account of the intelligence consensus. "We have high confidence that he was there, and also high confidence, but not as high, that he got out. We have several accounts of that from people who are in detention, al Qaeda people who were free at the time and are not free now."

Franks continues to dissent from that analysis. Rear Adm. Craig Quigley, his chief spokesman, acknowledged the dominant view outside Tampa but said the general is unpersuaded.

"We have never seen anything that was convincing to us at all that Osama bin Laden was present at any stage of Tora Bora -- before, during or after," Quigley said. "I know you've got voices in the intelligence community that are taking a different view, but I just wanted you to know our view as well."

"Truth is hard to come by in Afghanistan," Quigley said, and for confidence on bin Laden's whereabouts "you need to see some sort of physical concrete proof."

Franks has told subordinates that it was vital at the Tora Bora battle, among the first to include allies from Afghanistan's Pashtun majority, to take a supporting role and "not just push them aside and take over because we were America," according to Quigley.

"Our relationship with the Afghans in the south and east was entirely different at that point in the war," he said. "It's no secret that we had a much more mature relationship with the Northern Alliance fighters." Franks, he added, "still thinks that the process he followed of helping the anti-Taliban forces around Tora Bora, to make sure it was crystal clear to them that we were not there to conquer their country . . . was absolutely the right thing to do."

With the collapse of the Afghan cordon around Tora Bora, and the decision to hold back U.S. troops from the Army's 10th Mountain Division, Pakistan stepped in. The government of President Pervez Musharraf moved thousands of troops to his border with Afghanistan and intercepted about 300 of the estimated 1,000 al Qaeda fighters who escaped Tora Bora. U.S. officials said close to half of the detainees now held at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were turned over by the Pakistani government.

Those successes included none of the top al Qaeda leaders at Tora Bora, officials acknowledged. Of the dozen senior leaders identified by the U.S. government, two are now accounted for -- Muhammad Atef, believed dead in a Hellfire missile attack, and Abu Zubaida, taken into custody late last month. But "most of the people we have been authorized to kill are still breathing," said an official directly involved in the pursuit, and several of them were at Tora Bora.

The predominant view among the analysts is that bin Laden is alive, but knowledgeable officials said they cannot rule out the possibility that he died at Tora Bora or afterward. Some analysts believe bin Laden is seriously ill and under the medical care of his second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, an Egyptian-trained physician. One of the theories, none supported by firm evidence, is that he has Marfan syndrome, a congenital disorder of some people with bin Laden's tall, slender body type that puts them at increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

The minority of U.S. officials who argue that bin Laden is probably dead note that four months have passed since any credible trace of him has surfaced in intelligence collection. Those who argue that he is probably alive note that monitoring of a proven network of bin Laden contacts has turned up no evidence of reaction to his death. If he had died, surely there would have been some detectable echo within this network, these officials argue.

In public, the Bush administration acknowledges no regret about its prosecution of Tora Bora. One official spokesman, declining to be named, described questions about the battle as "navel-gazing" and said the national security team is "too busy for that." He added, "We leave that to you guys in the press."

But some policymakers and operational officers spoke in frustrated and even profane terms of what they called an opportunity missed.

"We [messed] up by not getting into Tora Bora sooner and letting the Afghans do all the work," said a senior official with direct responsibilities in counterterrorism. "Clearly a decision point came when we started bombing Tora Bora and we decided just to bomb, because that's when he escaped. . . . We didn't put U.S. forces on the ground, despite all the brave talk, and that is what we have had to change since then."

When al Qaeda forces began concentrating again in February, south of the town of Gardez, Franks moved in thousands of U.S. troops from the 101st Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Division. In the battle of Shahikot in early March -- also known as Operation Anaconda -- the United States let Afghan allies attack first. But when that offensive stalled, American infantry units took it up.

Another change since Tora Bora, with no immediate prospect of finding bin Laden, is that President Bush has stopped proclaiming the goal of taking him "dead or alive" and now avoids previous references to the al Qaeda founder as public enemy number one.

In an interview with The Washington Post in late December, Bush displayed a scorecard of al Qaeda leaders on which he had drawn the letter X through the faces of those thought dead. By last month, Bush began saying that continued public focus on individual terrorists, including bin Laden, meant that "people don't understand the scope of the mission."

"Terror is bigger than one person," Bush said March 14. "He's a person that's now been marginalized." The president said bin Laden had "met his match" and "may even be dead," and added: "I truly am not that concerned about him."

Top advisers now assert that the al Qaeda leader's fate should be no measure of U.S. success in the war.

"The goal there was never after specific individuals," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week. "It was to disrupt the terrorists."

Said Quigley at the Central Command: "There's no question that Osama bin Laden is the head of al Qaeda, and it's always a good thing to get rid of the head of an organization if your goal is to do it harm. So would we like to get bin Laden? You bet, but al Qaeda would still exist as an organization if we got him tomorrow."

At least since the 1980s, the U.S. military has made a point of avoiding open declaration of intent to capture or kill individual enemies. Such assignments cannot be carried out with confidence, and if acknowledged they increase the stature of an enemy leader who survives. After-action disclosures have made clear, nonetheless, that finding Manuel Noriega during the Panama invasion of 1989 and Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Persian Gulf War were among the top priorities of the armed forces.

The same holds true now, high-ranking officials said in interviews on condition that they not be named. "Of course bin Laden is crucial," one said.

In Britain, Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram told BBC radio yesterday that bin Laden's capture "remains one of the prime objectives" of the war.

Staff researcher Robert Thomason contributed to this report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jettio
09-07-2004, 05:08 PM
Posted on Sun, Oct. 13, 2002

U.S. lost its best opportunity to crush al-Qaida at Tora Bora
By DREW BROWN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

MARKHANAI, Afghanistan - Hungry, tired and hindered by snow, the 25 al-Qaida fighters were easy prey for the huge B-52 bombers, circling so high overhead that they could not be heard from the ground.

The bombers found their quarry in a narrow, rocky valley five hours from where the climactic battle of the United States' Afghan war was winding down last December. Villagers found their corpses several weeks later along a mountain path strewn with AK-47 rifles, ammunition, sleeping bags and a laptop computer.

The valley lies across the mountains from Tora Bora, where, for two weeks in December, the United States and its allies had their best opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and decapitate the terrorist organization that had attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001.

Tora Bora was to be al-Qaida's last stand. But it was not. Hundreds of al-Qaida fighters escaped because U.S. commanders, anxious to avoid American casualties, failed to commit U.S. units to the fight and relied instead on air power and on Afghan warlords whose loyalty and enthusiasm were suspect from the start.

The Bush administration proclaimed Tora Bora an American victory: The United States and its allies drove the enemy from the battlefield. But if the U.S. goal was to destroy the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in the attacks, America lost its best opportunity.

Letting al-Qaida escape complicated the war on terrorism and allowed the terrorist leaders to boast that, with God's help, they had survived America's heaviest blows.

Much of al-Qaida's leadership and, U.S. intelligence officials estimate, 1,000 to 1,100 of the terrorist army's foot soldiers escaped through the mountains into Pakistan's lawless border areas, where they found refuge with sympathetic tribesmen.

From there, the officials say, many of bin Laden's men sought refuge elsewhere in Pakistan or escaped to the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe.

Now some of the terrorists who escaped from Tora Bora and others who fled Afghanistan earlier have regrouped and have begun planning and carrying out new attacks, military and intelligence officials say.

The man who intelligence officials think planned last year's attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, remains a fugitive. Bin Laden's second-in-command, Egyptian doctor Ayman al Zawahiri, who was with bin Laden in Tora Bora, recently has reappeared in new audiotapes, issuing apocalyptic warnings similar to those that preceded other al-Qaida attacks. Bin Laden has not been heard from since last December, when he was overheard on a radio in Tora Bora, rallying his troops.

"Today, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists, but there's no question that free nations are still under threat," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Oct. 7 at a Pentagon news conference.

"Thousands of terrorists remain at large in dozens of countries. They're seeking weapons of mass destruction that would allow them to kill not only thousands, but tens of thousands, of innocent people."

So the war against al-Qaida continues as the Bush administration turns its attention to Iraq, where the United States once again is counting on its air power and is training local allies -- this time 10,000 Kurds and an unspecified number of Iraqi Shiite Muslims -- to supply intelligence, translators and fighters.

`Base for exodus'

The area called Tora Bora is about 30 miles south of the city of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, which was a hub of al-Qaida and other terrorist activity.

Islamic militants bound for Kashmir and Chechnya trained at al-Qaida camps nearby. Bin Laden lived for a while in Jalalabad and kept a house on the southern edge of the city. The al-Qaida leader returned to the city shortly after the U.S. attack on Afghanistan began on Oct. 7, 2001.

In late October, U.S. intelligence reports began noting that al-Qaida fighters, their families and members of al Wafa, a humanitarian organization that intelligence officials say served as al-Qaida's logistics branch, were moving into and around Jalalabad.

The reports said the local Taliban leader, Mullah Kabir, and Younis Khalis, a veteran of the U.S.-backed war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, were asking local Afghans who lived in desirable compounds to move out so the fleeing Arabs could move in.

American intelligence analysts concluded that bin Laden and his retreating fighters were preparing to flee across the border. But the U.S. Central Command, which was running the war, made no move to block their escape.

"It was obvious from at least early November that this area was to be the base for an exodus into Pakistan," said one intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "All of this was known, and frankly we were amazed that nothing was done to prepare for it."

Bin Laden last was seen heading south out of Jalalabad, toward Tora Bora, in a convoy on Nov. 15, the day his Taliban allies abandoned Jalalabad, according to Pakistani intelligence officers.

His convoy was one of several that left Jalalabad for Pakistan as U.S. warplanes pounded al-Qaida positions around the city and anti-Taliban Afghan forces began closing in, residents of the city said.

On the night the Taliban gave up Jalalabad, a convoy of 1,000 or more fighters passed through the village of Gherikil at the base of the foothills, according to local villagers.

"Noor Ghul," 35 -- who refused to give his real name -- said he worked as a cook for more than a year at the al-Qaida camp at Tora Bora. He now lives in the village of Tandor, just across the border in Pakistan's Kurram tribal agency.

He said that bin Laden assembled his followers Nov. 25 in the village of Milawa, in the foothills below the terrorist camp. The sparsely populated Milawa valley is a direct route from Tora Bora to the Pakistani border, which is eight or 10 hours away on foot, according to residents.

There were 2,500 to 3,000 al-Qaida fighters there, Ghul said. A senior U.S. intelligence official said the real number may have been one-third of that, however.

Bin Laden, Ghul said, thanked his fighters for coming to Afghanistan to serve Islam, then urged them to leave the country.

"We are not in a position to compete with the enemy," Ghul recalls bin Laden saying. "He is equipped with the latest weapons, which we lack. So I suggest to all of you that you go back to your respective countries before the situation becomes more dangerous. If we survive, then we will meet again, or we will meet at doomsday."

Then, Ghul said, bin Laden recited some verses from the Qur'an. The terrorist leader seemed depressed, and he leaned on his cane. He asked his senior leaders to distribute money to the men so they could get home. He urged his men to be patient, and he wished them success.

He then departed with his son and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar's son, accompanied by tribal elders from the Sulemankhel valley.

The stage was set for the battle of Tora Bora.

U.S. battle plan

America's decisive battle against al-Qaida in Afghanistan began in early December.

The U.S. Central Command chief, Gen. Tommy Franks, told Congress in July that the attack started after Afghan warlords Hazrat Ali and Haji Zaman told U.S. officers they intended to attack Tora Bora.

Ali, Zaman and warlord Haji Qadir had taken control of Jalalabad from the Taliban on Nov. 15.

Ali's version of the attack on Tora Bora is different. He says the Americans came to him 10 days before the offensive started.

"They said they wanted to attack al-Qaida at Tora Bora," said Ali, an opium smuggler who was living in a refugee camp in Peshawar, Pakistan, when the CIA hired him to help fight the Taliban and al-Qaida.

"I told them that we had been fighting them for six years and that some things take patience. But when the Americans came, they told us they wanted to attack as soon as possible, so we attacked."

The U.S. battle plan for Tora Bora followed the same blueprint as the one that had routed Taliban and al-Qaida forces in northern Afghanistan. U.S. planes would bomb, and the Afghans would attack on the ground. Small teams of U.S. and British special forces would direct air strikes in support of the advancing Afghan forces.

From the start, American commanders had tried to limit the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

"We deliberately did not plan an operation in Afghanistan based on putting in 100,000 or 150,000 American troops along the model of the Soviets," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate committee in June.

Some military officers thought their superiors' aversion to risk was crippling the effort to wipe out the terrorist group. An angry allied officer stormed out of one planning meeting, calling the Americans' eagerness to avoid casualties at any cost "bloody stupid."

U.S. and allied military and intelligence officers also warned that the combination of precision bombing, special operations forces and anti-Taliban ground forces that had worked so well in driving the Taliban from northern Afghanistan might not work in the heartland of the country's dominant Pashtun tribe.

By the end of the first week of December, there was plenty of evidence that they were right.

U.S.-backed local commanders moved into Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan, on Dec. 7, but they were more interested in jockeying for control of the city than in pursuing Omar and his lieutenants.

Some Taliban leaders fled south to Pakistan. Others returned home to the deeply conservative southern and eastern regions of the country. Hundreds of al-Qaida fighters vanished, making their way across the desert to Pakistan and Iran. All the while, more than 1,200 U.S. Marines sat at an abandoned air base in the desert 80 miles to the southwest.

"None of us here understood why we had the Marines playing at the desert strip," said a U.S. officer who asked that his name not be used. "They did a couple of small route interdiction things on the Lashkar Gah-Kandahar road, but other than that sat in the desert and then moved to Kandahar International (airport) and then to the American Embassy in Kabul.

"All during that time, Mullah Omar (and other Taliban leaders) were roaming all over the place in a state of shock. But they got over that, and now we have them burrowed into Pashtun tribal protection."

The episode, said a senior U.S. defense official, should have been a wake-up call.

"I think it has become clear to us that these guys do not share our interests all the time," said the official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Doomed from the start

Military and intelligence officials warned the U.S. commanders that Hazrat Ali and Haji Zaman, their Afghan allies in Jalalabad, were no more trustworthy than the warlords in Kandahar.

Ali and Zaman also were bitter rivals, and they bickered about who would attack Tora Bora and from which direction. The two commanders had about 2,000 gunmen between them, but they were slow to move into place. They did not launch their ground assault until four days after U.S. planes started bombing. A third commander, Haji Zahir, joined the attack at the last minute with 400 of his fighters.

Zahir contends that the assault was doomed from the beginning because the Americans started bombing before the Afghans could position their forces on the escape routes to Pakistan.

One of Zaman's tasks was to block escape routes through the Waziri Tangi valley, but he did not do it, said Rullulah, a subcommander of Zaman's rival, Ali.

The United States had made no plans to deploy its own or allied troops to block the exits. The 1,200 Marines stayed safely at their base in the desert near Kandahar.

"Ali and Zaman both assured our people that they had forces in blocking positions on the Spin Ghar when there were, in fact, no people there," a U.S. military official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "So besides taking Afghans at their word, we had no plans to bring up sufficient forces to make up for perfidy."

Some U.S. intelligence officers smelled treachery from the start. Reconnaissance pictures showed what looked to be campfires along the trails crossing the mountains into Pakistan, at altitudes above 10,000 feet. The Afghans told the Americans that the fires belonged to sheepherders, who were not to be attacked.

"Our guys in Afghanistan bought the Afghan story," said one military official. "Sheep have trouble finding food under two or three feet of snow, and sheepherders usually stay home when the temperature is zero. They were exfiltrators, pure and simple."

Those who got away appear to have had help.

Even before the ground attack began, Zaman and Ali were trying to negotiate an al-Qaida surrender. They told the al-Qaida forces that if they gave up their weapons, they would not be killed. Bin Laden's Arabs, Chechens and Uzbeks refused.

Nevertheless, Zaman declared a cease-fire on the second day of the attack, claiming that the Arabs and other foreigners wanted to reconsider. They asked for a 24-hour truce; Zaman gave them until 8 the next morning.

But Ali and Zahir claimed that no deal could be made, and a few hours later ordered their Afghan fighters to resume the attack. The American bombing never stopped. But Zaman had left the escape route through the Waziri Tangi valley open.

The Arabs said there were only 82 al-Qaida fighters at Tora Bora, according to Janullah Hashimzada, a Pakistani journalist who was present and spoke to one of them by radio.

Pentagon officials initially estimated that there were 2,000 al-Qaida fighters at Tora Bora. Now they think there were 1,000 to 1,100.

Forty-one al-Qaida fighters surrendered to Zaman and were taken to jail in Jalalabad, Hashimzada said.

Few casualties

In fairness, Tora Bora is some of the roughest country in a rough country.

"When the Russians came, they would try to catch us there, but they never could," said Haji Din Mohammed, a former resistance leader who is now the governor of Nangarhar province, whose capital is Jalalabad. "There are forests and many small valleys where you can hide. If you had 1,000 people, then maybe you could seal off those areas, but it would be difficult."

For all the talk of fierce fighting, only a few dozen Afghans were killed or wounded.

The Afghans claimed to have eliminated al-Qaida resistance by Dec. 16. U.S. bombs stopped falling in the nearby mountains soon after.

Ali thinks there were 1,100 al-Qaida fighters at Tora Bora, 300 of whom were killed. Other commanders say the figure was much lower, suggesting that the battle may have been nothing more than a rear-guard action by a couple of hundred fighters to cover the escape of the main al-Qaida columns.

There are few graves or other evidence in these mountains and valleys to account for the hundreds of al-Qaida fighters who U.S. officials claimed were killed.

Pakistani officials think that as many as 4,000 al-Qaida and Taliban fighters crossed into Pakistan's tribal areas by the end of December. A U.S. intelligence official said he thought that about 1,000 al-Qaida fighters, including some of the group's most important leaders, escaped the American dragnet at Tora Bora.

Those who made it safely across the border were helped not only by friendly tribesmen but also by sympathetic members of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, according to a senior official with links to the agency, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Others dispute this.

"If the ISI is rogue, then the army is rogue, and if the army is rogue, then the whole government is rogue," said retired Gen. Hamid Gul, who ran the ISI from 1987 to 1989. "It is simply not possible."

Underground radical groups helped some fugitive al-Qaida members obtain Pakistani passports, which they used to flee to such countries as Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, according to Pakistani intelligence sources. Others slipped into Peshawar, a city that served as headquarters to the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance in the 1980s and remains a hotbed of militancy.

U.S. special forces now have established a chain of bases along the Afghan-Pakistani border, but another winter is bringing new dangers. Officials worry that al-Qaida and Taliban survivors of Tora Bora are still hiding along the border, waiting for the clouds and snow to ground the Air Force's A-10s and AC-130s and leave the American soldiers who are guarding the border vulnerable to ambushes.

jAZ
09-07-2004, 05:08 PM
Hey, jAZ?

I'm still trying to figure out why you gave Fox News as a source? You've got them on your skepticism list, yet you provide them as a source for the "Terrorists want Bush re-elected" piece?

What are we to think?
That quote was reported by 100 different sources. It happened that Fox was the top Google reference on my search. But I chose to use them anyway (as I often do) because you guys trust them so much.

I already have confidence in the quote because all the various sources at reporting it at the time. I don't need additional confidence this time. That's for you guys. So I like to cite Fox News so you guys will trust it as well.

FringeNC
09-07-2004, 05:09 PM
I just want a yes or no answer. Fringe, Donger, JAZ, can you answer this honestly?

Should Bush/Cheney withdraw from the election if there is another terrorist attack in the next 2 months?

WTF are you talking about? The probability of a terrorist attack is not 0 or 1, no matter who is in office. My point is that the probability increases when you have a bunch of McGovernites (Sandy Berger and the like) running the show.

Cochise
09-07-2004, 05:10 PM
Should Bush/Cheney withdraw from the election if there is another terrorist attack in the next 2 months?

wtf are you talking about?

put the cap back on the paint thinner

jettio
09-07-2004, 05:11 PM
So how do you know what happened at Tora Bora? Were you there? Or were you just pulling the Dem talking points off of JohnKerry.com again?

So what do you think happened?

Maybe if you quit sitting on your thumb, you could type with both hands.

Donger
09-07-2004, 05:14 PM
That quote was reported by 100 different sources. It happened that Fox was the top Google reference on my search. But I chose to use them anyway (as I often do) because you guys trust them so much.

I already have confidence in the quote because all the various sources at reporting it at the time. I don't need additional confidence this time. That's for you guys. So I like to cite Fox News so you guys will trust it as well.

Actually, I trust CNN, NBC, ABC, Reuters, et al.

I'm just not the skeptic you are.

Although AP gave me the willies this week, I'll assume that it was an isolated incident.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 05:16 PM
wtf are you talking about?

put the cap back on the paint thinner


I am talking about what Cheney said. So if we were to hold them, Bush/Cheney, to their standards then should they withdraw for not protecting America. Pretty simple.

It is called having morals and taking responsibility.

stevieray
09-07-2004, 05:17 PM
Jesus Christ. That's fugging disgusting.

These guys will do or say anything to retain power.

Governing by fear.

:shake:

you've spent the last year and a half selling fear.


you can't even post without it being hypocritical or ironic.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 05:17 PM
WTF are you talking about? The probability of a terrorist attack is not 0 or 1, no matter who is in office. My point is that the probability increases when you have a bunch of McGovernites (Sandy Berger and the like) running the show.

I agree with that. :thumb:

I don't want a pussy for a President either but at the same time I don't want some out of touch VP trying to scare me into voting for him.

Cochise
09-07-2004, 05:21 PM
I am talking about what Cheney said. So if we were to hold them, Bush/Cheney, to their standards then should they withdraw for not protecting America. Pretty simple.

It is called having morals and taking responsibility.

You're building a stupid conclusion on the premise of something that wasn't even said.

He said that if sKerry were elected then there would be danger of an attack. There's a reason that you use a word like "danger" there, and it's to indicate at least some degree of improbability. If he had meant that it was 'certain' or that it 'would' happen, he could have said one of those things. But the word 'danger' was deliberately inserted, and even quoted by your source.

Your difficulty in handling the English language at a junior high level isn't my responsibility.

dirk digler
09-07-2004, 05:25 PM
You're building a stupid conclusion on the premise of something that wasn't even said.

He said that if sKerry were elected then there would be danger of an attack. There's a reason that you use a word like "danger" there, and it's to indicate at least some degree of improbability. If he had meant that it was 'certain' or that it 'would' happen, he could have said one of those things. But the word 'danger' was deliberately inserted, and even quoted by your source.

Your difficulty in handling the English language at a junior high level isn't my responsibility.

Cochise, he said if we lose then we will be attacked. You can spin it anyway you want but that is what his premise was.

I personally believe it doesn't matter who is in office the probablility of another terrorist attack on US soil is 100%.

Matt Helm
09-07-2004, 06:46 PM
Whether or not you like or dislike Kerry I think this is way over the line IMO. Have soon they forget that we lost 3000 US citizens on their watch. Digusting. They may lose my vote because of this.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V15AG0.html

Cheney Warns Against Vote for Kerry
Email this Story

Sep 7, 3:57 PM (ET)

By AMY LORENTZEN

(AP) Vice President Dick Cheney speaks to supporters during a town hall meeting, Tuesday, Sept. 7, 2004...
Full Image


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick 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.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"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," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

(AP) Vice President Dick Cheney speaks to supporters as he sits with his wife Lynne during a town hall...
Full Image
Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

Edwards added that he and Kerry "will keep American safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."

The candidates are campaigning hard for Iowa's seven electoral votes. Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the state in 2000. Bush has campaigned in the state five times in the last month, and Cheney has made three stops.

Hours before Cheney spoke, the Congressional Budget Office said this year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion. Cheney, in praising Bush's tax cuts, noted that the CBO said this year's projected deficit will be smaller than analysts had expected.

If you consider that in the past 19 years skerry has not supported the military, why would he support a move to try to disuade terrorists, after all you have to fight them with the military that he wants to be cut to the bone.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 08:16 PM
So what do you think happened?

Maybe if you quit sitting on your thumb, you could type with both hands.


Sorry, had a meeting to go to in the city...you know, do things that make money. It occasionally interferes with my posting promptly... ROFL

I have no idea what happened in Tora Bora...I wasn't there. Tommy Franks says he had no actionable intelligence that bin Laden was present. He could be lying. He could be telling the truth. Don't know.

jettio
09-07-2004, 08:28 PM
Sorry, had a meeting to go to in the city...you know, do things that make money. It occasionally interferes with my posting promptly... ROFL

I have no idea what happened in Tora Bora...I wasn't there. Tommy Franks says he had no actionable intelligence that bin Laden was present. He could be lying. He could be telling the truth. Don't know.

That's a bummer that he would pimp a book and not acknowledge a known mistake like that.

RINGLEADER
09-07-2004, 08:49 PM
BTW, I heard the Cheney interview on the radio and his comment didn't end where the AP ended it. It was a comma, not a period. He went on to say that we need to make sure that we don't go back to fighting to war on terror as if it is a criminal act (something that Kerry hinted at believing during his Meet the Press interview last April). It didn't sound as bad as the headline would lead you to believe. He was saying the danger was we'd stop prosecuting terrorist attacks as a war more so than saying a vote against Kerry is a vote for terrorism.

Duck Dog
09-07-2004, 08:50 PM
That's a bummer that he would pimp a book and not acknowledge a known mistake like that.


You're just dieing to bash the military, aren't you?

HolmeZz
09-07-2004, 09:27 PM
Cheney's words were that making the 'wrong choice', i.e. not voting for him and Bush, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attacks. You can't spin that. Those were his words.

And he shouldn't have said that. It was completely out of line and off base, with absolutely zero proof to back his claim.

He can say that he and Bush are going to do everything within their power to protect our country. That's what we all want. But saying we're all leaving ourselves open to attack by voting for Kerry and Edwards is completely irresponsible on Cheney's part.

the Talking Can
09-07-2004, 10:14 PM
Cheney's words were that making the 'wrong choice', i.e. not voting for him and Bush, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attacks. You can't spin that. Those were his words.

And he shouldn't have said that. It was completely out of line and off base, with absolutely zero proof to back his claim.

He can say that he and Bush are going to do everything within their power to protect our country. That's what we all want. But saying we're all leaving ourselves open to attack by voting for Kerry and Edwards is completely irresponsible on Cheney's part.

rep

this is very cut and dry....and still beyond ****ing outrageous....

Ugly Duck
09-08-2004, 12:12 AM
Where does cheney say that?

He says that making the wrong choice will be more dangerous.No, he does not. He says:

"if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again"

You went to correct a paraphrase of the statement, and then incorrectly paraphrased it yourself. Dang Republicans.... they're like that!

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 08:10 AM
Cheney's words were that making the 'wrong choice', <i>i.e. not voting for him and Bush</i>, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attacks. You can't spin that. Those were his words.

No, those were his words intermingled with <i>YOUR subjective take</i> on what he said.

Cheney made a straight-forward statement that is 100% accurate: the wrong choice will lead to reversion to Clintonian anti-terrorist tactics. (we all know how well THOSE work)

Once again Cheney/Bush try to discuss <i>issues</i> and the libs flail and scream like morons; completely ignoring the substance.

Matt Helm
09-08-2004, 08:23 AM
Sorry, had a meeting to go to in the city...you know, do things that make money. It occasionally interferes with my posting promptly... ROFL

I have no idea what happened in Tora Bora...I wasn't there. Tommy Franks says he had no actionable intelligence that bin Laden was present. He could be lying. He could be telling the truth. Don't know.

I can't say that I remember the complete message I read regarding Tora Bora, but I do remember that they thought OBL was there. The weapons used caused overpressure in the caves and tunnels at Tora Bora.

Thermobaric bombs were used.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/12/22/ret.new.weapon/

December 23, 2001 Posted: 9:01 AM EST (1401 GMT)

Department of Defense video shows a thermobaric bomb heading for a cave in testing.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is sending 10 new high-tech, bunker-busting bombs to Afghanistan that it says are more effective at destroying underground caves and tunnels.

The laser-guided bomb is a "thermobaric" weapon, a high-temperature, high-pressure explosive that uses a new class of fuel-rich explosive in its warhead. The explosive releases energy over a longer period of time than conventional explosives, allowing for a longer period of high pressure inside a confined space and creating more destruction via higher temperatures.

The Pentagon said Friday that tests show the thermobaric explosive is more effective in caves and tunnels. In an accelerated two-month field test completed December 14, the Air Force demonstrated that a ground-penetrating warhead filled with thermobaric explosives could destroy a mock tunnel target at a Nevada test site, the Pentagon said.

U.S. troops and anti-Taliban Afghan fighters are searching hundreds of caves and tunnels in the mountainous Tora Bora region of eastern Afghanistan for any remaining al Qaeda or Taliban forces.

"It's something that we clearly have a need for in Afghanistan, and they're on their way over there," said Pete Aldridge, undersecretary of defense for acquisition.

Aldridge said the test in Nevada involved dropping a laser-guided bomb into a tunnel and exploding it with a delayed fuse. He said the bomb created "a significant growth in overpressure for the tunnel and temperature."

Known as the BLU-118B, the new warhead is fitted onto the BLU-109, a 2,000-pound air-launched bomb. Air Force F-15E fighter jets will launch the new weapon, which would find its target either by a laser or satellite guidance system.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, a CNN military analyst, said the new weapon is not a fuel-air explosive but works on a similar principle.

A fuel-air explosion results when a detonator ignites tiny particles of fuel. The explosion is similar to blasts that have occurred in industries, such as in a coal mine when coal dust in the air ignites and explodes.

Shepperd said the thermobaric bomb enters a cave and sends out a cloud of explosive particles. The bomb ignites the particles over a period of time, allowing them to spread further into a cave or tunnel, thus producing a larger explosion.


Dust and debris are shot out of the cave by the pressure created when the weapon explodes.
One key difference with the new weapon and previous bombs is that it doesn't completely destroy a cave, allowing U.S. troops to enter the cave after eliminating opposing forces.

"It can spread through these tunnel complexes and, in many cases, without actually destroying them," Shepperd said. "So it'll kill the people that are in there, but it won't collapse the cave. Then you can go in and find out what's in there, (that's) the idea behind these, if it works perfectly."

Shepperd said the additional time to build up pressure before the bomb explodes is short, measured in milliseconds. But it creates a more intense explosion with much more heat, he said.

"So this sucks air in and out of caves because of the thermobaric pressure that builds up there and the heat," Shepperd said. "So it's very effective against caves, and we rushed it together as we do in all conflicts."

Shepperd said the original bunker-buster bomb was put together hurriedly for the Persian Gulf War, adding that about six of them were used in that conflict.

RINGLEADER
09-08-2004, 08:34 AM
Cheney's words were that making the 'wrong choice', i.e. not voting for him and Bush, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attacks. You can't spin that. Those were his words.

The point he was making was that Kerry's stated position is to treat the war on terror as "primarily a law enforcement issue" and that he would prosecute the war on terror as "criminal acts" rather than as a war. Anyway, thought you might be interested to read the whole quote:

"We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike -- Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We're now at that point where we're making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and 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, 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."

patteeu
09-08-2004, 08:45 AM
BTW, I am not a liberal I am just mad because this is the lowest attack I have heard yet.

You have got to be kidding me. Do you get out much? Have you not noticed the comparisons of the Bush administration to the fascists of Nazi Germany? Have you not heard prominent democrats (e.g. Howard Dean) entertaining the idea that GWBush knew about 9/11 before the fact? Is JFKerry's thesis that GWBush's less-sensitive approach to the war against terrorism has stirred up the anti-western islamists thereby leading to a more dangerous world not the same as this Cheney comment in reverse?

For Pete's sake, do you have to be a whiney-azzed, victimhood-seeking, puzzy to be a democrat these days or do the dems on this board just represent one wing of the party? Over the line, my butt. Get a grip on yourself, honey.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 08:49 AM
The Bush administration is following the Nazi lead again.

Here you go, Dirk. Just in case you missed all of the other outrageous statements that have been made in this campaign, jAZ comes to the rescue to provide examples of the typically sleazy leftwing contribution.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 08:57 AM
I just want a yes or no answer. Fringe, Donger, JAZ, can you answer this honestly?

Should Bush/Cheney withdraw from the election if there is another terrorist attack in the next 2 months?

I'll answer it:

NO

KCTitus
09-08-2004, 09:12 AM
If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

I see the Nazi label has been thrown out, thus losing the debate for Jaz...

I hope that at some point, someone note all the clucking didnt apparently get past the headline of the AP...

Here's the context of the comments. I think the sandgina is because Cheney is correct...well, so we think, since Kerry hasnt been clear as to exactly what he plans to do.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 11:32 AM
No, those were his words intermingled with <i>YOUR subjective take</i> on what he said.

Cheney made a straight-forward statement that is 100% accurate: the wrong choice will lead to reversion to Clintonian anti-terrorist tactics. (we all know how well THOSE work)

Hahahahahahahaha.

That's funny that I have a subjective take when I'm quoting exactly what Cheney said, and when you change his quote, it's not a subjective take on your part.

I understand and see the point Cheney was trying to make, but it came off as pure scare tactics.

RINGLEADER
09-08-2004, 11:35 AM
Hahahahahahahaha.

That's funny that I have a subjective take when I'm quoting exactly what Cheney said, and when you change his quote, it's not a subjective take on your part.

I understand and see the point Cheney was trying to make, but it came off as pure scare tactics.


I would agree with you HolmeZz - but I think his full comments are a LONG way from Edwards' contention that he's telling Americans if you don't vote for Bush and terrorists attack then it's the voters' fault.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 11:42 AM
Of course. Edwards has to make it look worse than it really is. :p

But I also see why Edwards could explore that avenue.

Ari Chi3fs
09-08-2004, 11:44 AM
Sounds like Cheney is threatening the american voters with terrorism... :hmmm: better bring him in for questioning... he sounds suspicious.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 11:55 AM
No one, not even Darth Cheney himself, suggests that JFKerry is going to capitulate to the terrorists. When it comes to things like metal detectors at the entrance to high value buildings or no fly zones over events like the Super Bowl or conducting surveilance on suspected terror cells, JFKerry will have a similar policy to that of Bush/Cheney.

But when it comes to proactively pounding terrorists before they come to America in order to keep them pinned down in their own hellholes, JFKerry advocates a more sensitive approach. JFKerry would wait for UN permission to drop a bomb on a terrorist training camp. JFKerry would work the issue with detectives instead of commandos. JFKerry would wait for an imminent threat instead of squashing a gathering threat.

The difference between Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney is that Kerry/Edwards thinks that the Bush approach to the war against terrorists CREATES more terrorists and makes the world LESS SAFE. Bush/Cheney OTOH, obviously believe that by pursuing their policy, they are suppressing terrorism.

This Cheney statement is not a low blow at all. It addresses the fundamental difference between the two candidates on the most important issue involved in this election. It represents his view, shared by most Bush/Cheney supporters, that the Kerry approach based primarily on law enforcement, pandering to Islamic moderates and the rest of the global go-along-get-along crowd, and playing defense is inferior to the Bush/Cheney approach which is based on disrupting Militant Islamists, discouraging their bases of support, and playing offense.

dirk digler
09-08-2004, 11:58 AM
You have got to be kidding me. Do you get out much? Have you not noticed the comparisons of the Bush administration to the fascists of Nazi Germany? Have you not heard prominent democrats (e.g. Howard Dean) entertaining the idea that GWBush knew about 9/11 before the fact? Is JFKerry's thesis that GWBush's less-sensitive approach to the war against terrorism has stirred up the anti-western islamists thereby leading to a more dangerous world not the same as this Cheney comment in reverse?

For Pete's sake, do you have to be a whiney-azzed, victimhood-seeking, puzzy to be a democrat these days or do the dems on this board just represent one wing of the party? Over the line, my butt. Get a grip on yourself, honey.

I am not a Democrat or a Republican and I can think for myself unlike some of the sheep on this board. I could really care less what propaganda Jaz, Denise, RL, or Howard Dean spew it doesn't effect what I think or believe.

I just think what Cheney said was stupid and he is just trying to scare the American people into voting for him. I think it is sad for sitting VP to try to pull this crap but I guess it shouldn't surprise me I just expect more from our leaders.

RINGLEADER
09-08-2004, 12:02 PM
Of course. Edwards has to make it look worse than it really is. :p

But I also see why Edwards could explore that avenue.


Agreed!

:thumb:

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:08 PM
Hahahahahahahaha.

That's funny that I have a subjective take when I'm quoting exactly what Cheney said, and when you change his quote, it's not a subjective take on your part.

I understand and see the point Cheney was trying to make, but it came off as pure scare tactics.

:spock:
Do you even know what 'subjective' means? Re-read your post. Again, you were not "quoting exactly what Cheney said," - you injected your subjective spin IN the quote.

My take was purely subjective. I wasn't trying to pass it off as "quoting exactly"; thus making it <i>my</i> opinion, sans altered paraphrasing.

Don't try to argue semantics with me. You will lose.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:10 PM
What spin did I inject?

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:12 PM
Correction: "you won't win" ;)

There really is no way to 'win' an internet argument. After all, arguing on the internet is like running a race in the Special Olympics - even if you 'win', you're still retarded :D

BTW, I read my earlier post and it does appear that I was referring to you, specifically, when I stated "...the libs flail and scream like morons; completely ignoring the substance." That was unintentional... I was referring to Edwards/Matthews/every other left-wing bitch who went whining all over television last night :thumb:

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:13 PM
Answer the qu3stion.

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:15 PM
Cheney's words were that making the 'wrong choice', <i>i.e. not voting for him and Bush, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attacks.</i> You can't spin that. <b>Those were his words.</b>

Your spin = italicized.

Again, those were NOT his words. That is YOUR subjective take on what VP Cheney said. You then turn around and say they are HIS words. You are SPINNING your take into something it is not: a direct quote. Classic case of putting words in someone else's mouth.

This is starting to remind me of the 'hanging chads' in FL. You, like the dems in FL, want to put your own interpretation on the substance of the issue, then try to pass it off as 'the truth'. Seems like 'spin' to me.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:18 PM
That's not spin. :-X

I was clarifying the 'wrong choice'. Was I wrong with the clarification or did Cheney mean that voting for him and Bush would be the 'wrong choice'?

And his words were that we'd be left vulnerable to terrorist attacks if we made the wrong choice.

"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,"

That's the same thing I said.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 12:21 PM
I am not a Democrat or a Republican and I can think for myself unlike some of the sheep on this board. I could really care less what propaganda Jaz, Denise, RL, or Howard Dean spew it doesn't effect what I think or believe.

I just think what Cheney said was stupid and he is just trying to scare the American people into voting for him. I think it is sad for sitting VP to try to pull this crap but I guess it shouldn't surprise me I just expect more from our leaders.

Earlier in this thread, you didn't merely think that what Cheney said was stupid, instead it was "the lowest attack [you had] heard yet." Either that is extreme exageration, or you've had your head in the sand for the duration of this campaign, or it was your honest opinion. If it was the latter then I don't have much respect for your value judgements wrt campaign sleaze.

As for it being a stupid statement, what's your thoughtful, nonpartisan opinion of the Kerry/Edwards accusation that Bush's policies create more terrorism and provide a recruiting benefit to Al Qaeda? Isn't this just the flipside of what Cheney said?

Kerry/Edwards say that Bush's tough approach to terrorism stimulates more terrorism.

Bush/Cheney say that Kerry's sensitive approach to terrorism permits more terrorism.

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:26 PM
Now you're getting it: <i>your</i> 'clarification' = your <i>subjective</i> interpretation of the statement. You then state that it is what he 'said'. It wasn't. It was how you interpretted the statement; ie, 'subjective' ;)

Again, semantics, but it proves a valuable point: you see the veep's statement as rhetoric, 'scare tactics'. I see it for what it is (in <i>my</i> subjective opinion) - the statement that moving away from an offensive philosophy to one of pascifism and law enforcement, the path taken in the 90s and suggested by KERRY, would lead to attacks again. I happen to agree with him 100%. How many attacks have we sustained since we engaged Afghanistan and Iraq? How many did we sustain in the 90s under Kerry's proposed philosophy? (well, the one where he suggests treating the WOT as a law enforcement issue, not the one where he agrees with the prez, or the one where he wants to go all SF, or the one where....)

jettio
09-08-2004, 12:26 PM
No one, not even Darth Cheney himself, suggests that JFKerry is going to capitulate to the terrorists. When it comes to things like metal detectors at the entrance to high value buildings or no fly zones over events like the Super Bowl or conducting surveilance on suspected terror cells, JFKerry will have a similar policy to that of Bush/Cheney.

But when it comes to proactively pounding terrorists before they come to America in order to keep them pinned down in their own hellholes, JFKerry advocates a more sensitive approach. JFKerry would wait for UN permission to drop a bomb on a terrorist training camp. JFKerry would work the issue with detectives instead of commandos. JFKerry would wait for an imminent threat instead of squashing a gathering threat.

The difference between Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney is that Kerry/Edwards thinks that the Bush approach to the war against terrorists CREATES more terrorists and makes the world LESS SAFE. Bush/Cheney OTOH, obviously believe that by pursuing their policy, they are suppressing terrorism.

This Cheney statement is not a low blow at all. It addresses the fundamental difference between the two candidates on the most important issue involved in this election. It represents his view, shared by most Bush/Cheney supporters, that the Kerry approach based primarily on law enforcement, pandering to Islamic moderates and the rest of the global go-along-get-along crowd, and playing defense is inferior to the Bush/Cheney approach which is based on disrupting Militant Islamists, discouraging their bases of support, and playing offense.

This is just the latest salvo in an extended campaigng to do exactly the opposite of what Ronald Reagan said in his Presidential farewell.

He said that he wanted to be remembered for appealling to our citizens geatest hopes and not arguing for policies by appealing to their worst fears.

The entire Pre-Iraq lie-fest including blatant attempts to make the public fearful beyond any realistic appraisal of threat.

Rove and Stooges are manipulative sh*tbags.

Stop being a kool-aid drinking apologist, look at the video tapes, every pre-Iraq speech would full of focus group vetted fear-mongering.

I am quite sure that Cheney misspoke yesterday, but it is substantively consistent with the previous intentional fear-mongering.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 12:27 PM
Kerry/Edwards say that Bush's tough approach to terrorism stimulates more terrorism.

Bush/Cheney say that Kerry's sensitive approach to terrorism permits more terrorism.

That's the essence of this campaign IMO. As someone who hasn't voted for a Republican for president since 1984, I choose Bush/Cheney based on this stark contrast.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:29 PM
Now you're getting it: <i>your</i> 'clarification' = your <i>subjective</i> interpretation of the statement. You then state that it is what he 'said'. It wasn't. It was how you interpretted the statement; ie, 'subjective' ;)

Explain the difference between what Cheney said and what I quoted him as saying, since there was obviously spin thrown in there, eventhough I haven't endorsed either canidate for president.

patteeu
09-08-2004, 12:38 PM
This is just the latest salvo in an extended campaigng to do exactly the opposite of what Ronald Reagan said in his Presidential farewell.

He said that he wanted to be remembered for appealling to our citizens geatest hopes and not arguing for policies by appealing to their worst fears.

The entire Pre-Iraq lie-fest including blatant attempts to make the public fearful beyond any realistic appraisal of threat.

Rove and Stooges are manipulative sh*tbags.

Stop being a kool-aid drinking apologist, look at the video tapes, every pre-Iraq speech would full of focus group vetted fear-mongering.

I am quite sure that Cheney misspoke yesterday, but it is substantively consistent with the previous intentional fear-mongering.

Are you suggesting that Kerry/Edwards are not fear-mongering?


Bush policies are driving more moderates in the islamic world into the hands of the radicals
Bush has turned the rest of the world against us. We are more despised around the globe than anytime in our history
Bush is spending us into a deficit that will spawn endless economic suffering
Bush's tax policies encourage offshoring of our jobs
The draft is around the corner unless you elect Kerry/Edwards
Bush is letting his corporate pals poison our air and water so they can line their pockets
Bush is handing out huge tax breaks to his wealthy friends and is squeezing the middle class
etc. etc. etc.


:rolleyes:


And the only Ronald Reagan I want to hear you using in your future arguments is Ron Jr. You tarnish the former president by including his name in a positive manner in your posts. ;) :p

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:40 PM
:spock:

What YOU said:
Cheney's words were that making the 'wrong choice', i.e. not voting for him and Bush, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to terrorist attacks. You can't spin that. Those were his words.

What VP Cheney said:
"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"

Again, your take is subjective, then passed-off as a direct quote; as 'interpretted' for the masses. VP did NOT say 'vote for Bush/Cheney' or you'll endure terrorism'. That's how YOU interpretted his statement. That does NOT make it a direct quote - that makes it your <i>subjective</i> take on it. To turn around and say "well those were his words" is incorrect. It's how you've <i>spun</i> his words by injecting your subjective take on them.

dirk digler
09-08-2004, 12:43 PM
Earlier in this thread, you didn't merely think that what Cheney said was stupid, instead it was "the lowest attack [you had] heard yet." Either that is extreme exageration, or you've had your head in the sand for the duration of this campaign, or it was your honest opinion. If it was the latter then I don't have much respect for your value judgements wrt campaign sleaze.

As for it being a stupid statement, what's your thoughtful, nonpartisan opinion of the Kerry/Edwards accusation that Bush's policies create more terrorism and provide a recruiting benefit to Al Qaeda? Isn't this just the flipside of what Cheney said?

Kerry/Edwards say that Bush's tough approach to terrorism stimulates more terrorism.

Bush/Cheney say that Kerry's sensitive approach to terrorism permits more terrorism.

IMO, it was the lowest attack I have heard and that is my opinion not yours. I view it that way because it came from a sitting VP not some political talking head.

I disagree with Kerry/Edwards and I do believe we need to take the fight to the terrorists and not the other way around. I don't agree with Bush/Cheney about the Iraq war being part of the war on terror. I think it distracted us from Afghanistan and the rest of the war on terror. I heard the other day and I was very surprised to hear is that American troops can't even get into some towns/villages in Afghanistan because the tribal leaders won't let them in and we call this a success? Sure we got rid of the Taliban but big deal because the terrorists could be hiding out in some of the villages that we can't go in.
The only other problem I have with Bush/Cheney about their policy is and I stated this before is that they send all of our troops and money overseas yet don't spend any money here at home. Our borders are like sieve and any terrorist could very easily walk right into the USA without even being questioned. For the record I don't believe John Kerry will fix this problem either.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:44 PM
You didn't do what I had asked you to, which is tell me the difference, in your own words, between what Cheney said and how I quoted him.

I injected muy OPINION after I stated what Cheney said.

And I never said that his words were "vote for Bush/Cheney or you'll endure terrorism", so it's funny that you say I'm putting words in Cheney's mouth when you're the one putting words into my mouth.

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:45 PM
re-read post #114.

Do you want a definition of 'is' to go with that? :p

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:47 PM
The only thing I clarified is what Cheney meant by saying the 'wrong choice'.

Or am I somehow wrong about that clarification?

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:50 PM
The only thing I clarified is what Cheney meant by saying the 'wrong choice'.

Or am I somehow wrong about that clarification?


You can't be 'wrong' about it, as that is your subjective take :) What you are 'wrong' about is to say that it is exactly what he said. Again, you're implying your subjective take = absolute; which is a falacy.

Flashback: 2000; Dade County, 'hanging chads'.

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 12:51 PM
So then explain to me what the 'wrong choice' he was talking about was, since apparently I'm mistaken and you're right.

HC_Chief
09-08-2004, 12:54 PM
See that? That was the point flying 100 miles over your head. D'oh, it's out of sight now. Too late :D

Lzen
09-08-2004, 01:37 PM
It's pretty simple, really. If Kerry is elected, we don't hit the terrorists where they hide in other countries and we wait until they hit us again. I don't think what Cheney said was wrong. Whether it was a low tactic or not is irrelavant. It's the most likely outcome.

Jaz,
you say this statement by Cheney is disgusting. Insinuating this tactic is hitting below the belt. Then you compare Bush/Cheney to Nazi's. That makes you a hypocrite, IMO.

Lzen
09-08-2004, 01:39 PM
I agree with that. :thumb:

I don't want a pussy for a President either but at the same time I don't want some out of touch VP trying to scare me into voting for him.

The truth hurts sometimes. The real world is a very scary place. He's just telling it like it is. Open your eyes.

jettio
09-08-2004, 01:56 PM
Are you suggesting that Kerry/Edwards are not fear-mongering?


Bush policies are driving more moderates in the islamic world into the hands of the radicals
Bush has turned the rest of the world against us. We are more despised around the globe than anytime in our history
Bush is spending us into a deficit that will spawn endless economic suffering
Bush's tax policies encourage offshoring of our jobs
The draft is around the corner unless you elect Kerry/Edwards
Bush is letting his corporate pals poison our air and water so they can line their pockets
Bush is handing out huge tax breaks to his wealthy friends and is squeezing the middle class
etc. etc. etc.


:rolleyes:


And the only Ronald Reagan I want to hear you using in your future arguments is Ron Jr. You tarnish the former president by including his name in a positive manner in your posts. ;) :p

I'll remember that. :thumb:

As to the itemized list, telling it like it is is hardly fear-mongering, at least four of those items are true.

I think endless economic suffering would be an extreme claim, but I doubt that anyone has said that.

I think it is pretty apparent that fear-mongering is the Bush-Cheney Modus Operandi and that they have made a dedicated effort to corral the lily-livered vote.

Baby Lee
09-08-2004, 03:48 PM
I'll remember that. :thumb:

As to the itemized list, telling it like it is is hardly fear-mongering, at least four of those items are true.

I think endless economic suffering would be an extreme claim, but I doubt that anyone has said that.

I think it is pretty apparent that fear-mongering is the Bush-Cheney Modus Operandi and that they have made a dedicated effort to corral the lily-livered vote.
Nice job of stating your premise and negating it in the same post.

jettio
09-08-2004, 04:41 PM
Nice job of stating your premise and negating it in the same post.

Huh?

If you have some kind of translator program converting my posts form English, you are having a major malfunction.

stevieray
09-08-2004, 04:48 PM
Nice job of stating your premise and negating it in the same post.

notice how certain posters get more condescending and arrogant as the reality of losing becomes clearer?


The core of spite and hate is rearing its ugly head.

KCWolfman
09-08-2004, 05:27 PM
Huh?

If you have some kind of translator program converting my posts form English, you are having a major malfunction.
The irony is thick in your post. That is spelled i-r-o-n-y.

You reak of gloom and doom and state it is "telling it like it is" and almost in the same breathe you condemn the Right for doing the same.

jettio
09-08-2004, 06:10 PM
The irony is thick in your post. That is spelled i-r-o-n-y.

You reak of gloom and doom and state it is "telling it like it is" and almost in the same breathe you condemn the Right for doing the same.


I think you scared azz bizzitches are missing my point that Bush-Cheney are keeping your dumbazzess afraid based on lies.

I did not realize that it was not extremely obvious that I was claiming that.

I sure was intending for it to be as obvious as possible.

Quit being so scared that you can't even read.

Baby Lee
09-08-2004, 06:13 PM
I think you scared azz bizzitches are missing my point that Bush-Cheney are keeping your dumbazzess afraid based on lies.

I did not realize that it was not extremely obvious that I was claiming that.

I sure was intending for it to be as obvious as possible.

Quit being so scared that you can't even read.
Put down the Thunderbird and go ahead and drift off to sleepy town.

jettio
09-08-2004, 07:09 PM
Put down the Thunderbird and go ahead and drift off to sleepy town.

That's pretty funny.

I do geting tired of having to teach people up on how to read

the Talking Can
09-08-2004, 07:17 PM
what's funny is that Bush and Cheney both are too cowardly to stand by the statement...

Cheney cleared his schedule and wouldn't talk to reporters, Bush was asked about it today and he just looked away and pretended he didn't hear the question, until his aides shoo-ed the reporters out

....it was every bit as sad and offensive as his display at his last press conference, when asked why he refuses to be interviewed alone by the 9/11 comission (he insisted that Cheney accompany him) he acted as if he didn't hear the question....twice....and then simply ignored it...

now you know why he rarely holds press conferences (even though we're at war in 2 countries)....if you're going to say something that pathetic and offensive you should at least have the balls to stand behind it....but they sold Zell Miller down the river too....this is not unprecedented....

MadMax
09-08-2004, 08:52 PM
So then explain to me what the 'wrong choice' he was talking about was, since apparently I'm mistaken and you're right.


You are always wrong amd he IS right... You are a joke hahahahaha! lol LWWAH!

HolmeZz
09-08-2004, 10:02 PM
You're a dumbass.

This MadMax guy has gone through random posts I've made and given them all bad rep, regardless of content.

Is there anything that mods or someone can do?

Joe Seahawk
09-08-2004, 10:08 PM
what's funny is that Bush and Cheney both are too cowardly to stand by the statement...

Cheney cleared his schedule and wouldn't talk to reporters, Bush was asked about it today and he just looked away and pretended he didn't hear the question, until his aides shoo-ed the reporters out

....it was every bit as sad and offensive as his display at his last press conference, when asked why he refuses to be interviewed alone by the 9/11 comission (he insisted that Cheney accompany him) he acted as if he didn't hear the question....twice....and then simply ignored it...

now you know why he rarely holds press conferences (even though we're at war in 2 countries)....if you're going to say something that pathetic and offensive you should at least have the balls to stand behind it....but they sold Zell Miller down the river too....this is not unprecedented....

Can, re-read the quote and put it into context..Even Julian Sanchez (Liberal democrat) says this:

Much as it pains me to defend Dick Cheney, it seems to me as though his alleged "scare tactics" vis a vis the threat of terror if we make the "wrong choice" on Election Day rest on a straightforward misreading of his statement. Here's what most of the articles I've seen are quoting:


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.

Here's the full relevant statement from the transcript:


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.

Most of the reports either omit the rest of the quotation entirely, or append it elsewhere, as though they weren't part of one long, multi-clause sentence. As I read this, he's not saying the danger is that if we elect Kerry, then the danger is that we'll be attacked. He's saying that if we elect Kerry and we're attacked, then the danger is that we'll treat it as a criminal act rather than an act of war. And in context, it's actually pretty transparent that this is what Cheney intended. So transparent once you look at the full transcript, in fact, that I wonder whether some of the misreading isn't deliberate, either as a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story.


http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/006678.shtml#006678

the Talking Can
09-08-2004, 11:16 PM
Can, re-read the quote and put it into context..Even Julian Sanchez (Liberal democrat) says this:




http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/006678.shtml#006678

most stories printed all that....I've read it and I've seen it, the intent is clear....obviously people disagree...I think their silence is the true test of what that statement meant, I still think it is outrageous and as base a campaign maneuver as I can remember...republicans can cheer about it all they want...


what's funny is that Sanchez leaves out the entire qoute, here it is with the part he withholds:

"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,"

he leaves out the clause that makes it clear Cheney is talking about the election...there's no other way to read it....(if/then)if we don't vote republican on Nov. 2 we'll get hit again.....but if we vote republican we don't have to worry about it...those are his words, and I want him and the president to stand by them...they've crossed a line and they have to be held accountable

Saggysack
09-08-2004, 11:41 PM
I'm wondering if Bush/Cheney gets reelected and another terrorist attack happens on our soil will Cheney then come out and state the american voters made the wrong choice in the voting booth?

MadMax
09-09-2004, 12:24 AM
I'm wondering if Bush/Cheney gets reelected and another terrorist attack happens on our soil will Cheney then come out and state the american voters made the wrong choice in the voting booth?



No way cause there would be MUCH less devastation and the response would be swift and appropriate.. ;-) :p :thumb:

Ari Chi3fs
09-09-2004, 04:08 AM
http://www.methodlab.com/members/default/coffee.gif

Saggysack
09-09-2004, 05:06 AM
No way cause there would be MUCH less devastation and the response would be swift and appropriate.. ;-) :p :thumb:

:spock: Maybe I'm not understanding you. Are you trying to suggest that less devastation and a swift an appropriate response doesn't make a terrorist act, a terrorist act?

How can you honestly say the devastation would MUCH less? How would you know Kerry wouldn't respond swiftly and appropriately? The statements you made don't make any amount of sense.

It would be like lib saying that since the Bush Admin. has failed to capture the man who ordered the worst act of terrorism on our soil, therefore OBL will never be caught during their watch.

Cheney made an idiotic statement and playing nostradamus is for fools. He purposely said those remarks to strike fear in those easily swayed. Those same people who believe that crap would probaly believe him if he said if Kerry is elected the sky would turn purple and come crashing down to earth.

Lightning Rod
09-09-2004, 08:05 AM
My $00.02

Spin this however you like but its aim was clear. Just like the ad the Dems ran in KC with a picture of a Black man with the caption, The Reps have a plan too bad your not included. They twisted that one also but what they were doing was pretty plain to me.

patteeu
09-09-2004, 08:42 AM
My $00.02

Spin this however you like but its aim was clear. Just like the ad the Dems ran in KC with a picture of a Black man with the caption, The Reps have a plan too bad your not included. They twisted that one also but what they were doing was pretty plain to me.

Huh? Spell it out for me, I'm slow this morning.

patteeu
09-09-2004, 08:53 AM
Let's assume Cheney's statement was intended to carry the message that voting for Kerry/Edwards would increase the chances of bigger badder terrorist attacks here at home.

So what?

What is the difference between that type of "fear mongering" and all the other "fear mongering" that takes place going both ways. Is this just your pet fear so it's more meaningful to you and therefore it "crosses the line?"

Republicans say that if you elect Democrats they will increase the minimum wage and you should fear losing jobs.

Democrats say that if you elect Republicans they will let people go without healthcare

Libertarians say that if you elect Republicans or Democrats they will continue to tax you into slavery.

Republicans say that if you elect Democrats they will appoint judges that will bow to the gay agenda and destroy traditional marriage.

Democrats say that if you elect Republicans they will turn the world against us and make us a pariah.

Republicans say that if you elect Democrats they will surrender our nation's sovereignty to anti-American bureacrats at the UN.

Democrats say that if you elect Republicans they will turn American into a fascist police state.

On and on and on. I just don't see anything remarkable about Cheney's comments. Quit being pussies, politics is hardball.

P.S. And anyone who compares Cheney's comments to the left's wild smears (especially comparing Bush to Nazi fascism) and find's Cheney's comments to be the worst they've ever heard needs to get their head examined.