CHENEY THREATENS VOTERS WITH TERRORIST REPRISALS

If anyone here is still in doubt about the character of the men who are currently running our country, I give you the following from the L.A. TIMES:

US Vice-President Dick Cheney has warned that electing the Democratic presidential ticket would make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Mr Cheney's comments came on a day when President George Bush increased efforts to paint Senator John Kerry as wobbly on the war in Iraq and the Democratic challenger accused the President of executing a war that has cost the US dearly.
The Vice-President's aides later said he was referring to the terrorist threat that faces any administration elected in November. But his remarks were taken as an inflammatory charge that overshadowed the day's exchanges on the campaign trail.
As the number of deaths of US soldiers in Iraq reached 1000, Mr Cheney sought to question how the Democrats would handle national security.
During a question-and-answer session with supporters at a Des Moines hotel, he said it was imperative that the nation made the "right choice" in November, adding that decisions made by the next administration would have an impact over the next 30 or 40 years. "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that'll be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war," Mr Cheney told about 200 people assembled in the hotel ballroom.

"I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."
Democratic vice-presidential candidate John Edwards immediately fired back, accusing his opponent of trying to frighten voters.

"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," the North Carolina senator said.
"Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
Hours after Mr Cheney's words caused a stir on news wires and cable news programs, his spokeswoman told reporters that he stood by his statements, but she sought to explain them.
As the Vice-President flew back to Washington, DC, on Tuesday evening, from a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire, campaign press secretary Anne Womack said: "What the Vice-President was saying is, 'whoever is elected, we face the prospect of a terrible attack.' But the issue at hand is whether you have the right policies in place to prevent an attack."
Asked whether Mr Cheney meant to imply that a Kerry presidency would result in a terrorist attack, Ms Womack replied: "The Vice-President is saying that we need to ensure that we have the right politics in place to protect Americans. The campaign stands by and the Vice-President stands by my explanation of his statement."
- Los Angeles Times

Sounds like mafia tactics to me. "Vote for my guy or you'll be wearing concrete shoes."

[wolf]

I gave that statement a lot of thought ... I and I think it is accurate. The character of the presidency and the willingness to seek out those who would commit terrorist acts against this nation DOES have a lot to do with the relative safety of the United States. I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

[vsp]

Originally Posted by wolf

I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

The same thing that happened with Bush as president, except with less My Pet Goat, and fewer advisors running around the Oval Office screaming "IRAQ! IRAQ! IRAQ!"

What happened _after_ the reprisals against Afghanistan would have been different.

[Troubleshooter]

At least Gore has the decency to LOOK like an animatronic puppet.

[ladysycamore]

Originally Posted by wolf

I gave that statement a lot of thought ... I and I think it is accurate. The character of the presidency and the willingness to seek out those who would commit terrorist acts against this nation DOES have a lot to do with the relative safety of the United States. I several times have reflected with fear upon what might have happened had Gore been president on 9/11/01.

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

Hrm...about OKC. Homegrown terrorism, anyone? Who's looking out after them?

Teens plead guilty in cross-burning case
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/03/cross.burning.ap/

This worries me personally more than anything, because that could easily be MY lawn they burn a cross on.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

I have several times asked the question why we (the US) have not become subject to a suicide-boming-a-day like in Israel, or faced multiple other terrorist incidents out of the Al-Quaeda playbook?

Like it or not, my personal belief is that the answer is Bush.

That conclusion flies contrary to basic facts. Yes it will be detailed because when I say that is SO incorrect as to be a lie, then the reasons come with details. Details one better damn well know before saying this president makes America safer. George Jr made America so unsafe from terrorist attacks that some could even conclude it was done so intentionally. Reality says otherwise. But first we examine how real anti-terrorism works.

Under Clinton, when a terrrorist act was suspected, then the entire government went on the alert and therefore stopped terrorist actions. Back then, the Counterterrorism Security Group was considered so important as to have 'principals' access.

from Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies
When Black called that day in 1999, we quickly convened a CSG meeting and sent out warnings to US embassies, military bases, and the 18,000 police agencies in the United States. The message: Be advised, al Qaeda terrorists may be planning attacks around the time of the Millennium. Be on heightened alert for suspicious activity. And then we waited.

That message went overseas, but also to all federal law enforcement agents, as well as many county sheriffs, state troopers, highway patrol officers, and city cops. The break came in an unlikely location. A pleasant boat ride from British Columbia to Washington State ended with a routine screening by US Customs officers. One passenger in line fidgeted, would not make eye contact. When the Customs officer, Diana Dean, went to pull him out of line, he bolted and ran off the boat, leaving his car on the ferry. Dean gave chase and called for backup. A few minutes later, Ahmed Ressam was in custody. His car held explosives, and a map of Los Angles International Airport.

If that were not enough to send us spinning, CIA had learned further details about the al Qaeda plot in Jordan. The head of the cell who had helped assemble the bombs, had recently quite his job - as a cab driver in Boston.

The Jordanian Crown Prince, visiting the bomb factory hidden in an upper middle class home, had been amazed at the size of the haul. "They weren't planning terrorism, they were planning a revolution." The King immediately declared a state of emergency and flooded the streets with soldiers and armored vehicles. More than the usual suspects were swept up and interrogated. The investigation led to an al Qaeda operative in Pakistan, and to another American who had lived not far from Los Angles International Airport.

In fifteen months, since the embassy bombings, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger had held dozens of Principles meetings on al Qaeda. He knew their names, their modus operandi, and he feared they would strike again before we could cripple their organization. ...

Following the first of these [resulting] Principals meetings, we prepared, at Berger's request, a Pol-Mil Plan for the Millennium Alert, alerting units, increasing security, rounding up suspects around the world. ...

This time, however, FBI did respond well. It did one of the things it is very good at: it threw bodies at the problem. Thousands of agents fanned out, pulling at strings. The strings from Ressam, then man on the ferry, led to a sleeper cell of Algerian mujahedeen in Montreal. ... The leads the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provided went to what look like cells in Boston and New York. By the time I called John O'Neill to ask what he was doing, he was on the back street in Brooklyn where his agents had just arrested an al Qaeda operative connected to Ressam.

The Justice Department normally reviewed FBI requests for national security wiretaps with a skeptical eye. Justice correctly wanted to insure there were no abusues, lest Congress restrict their ability .... In the weeks before the Millennium, however, Fran Townsend and her staff at Justice brought dozens of FISA requests to the special intelligence court judges. More happened in a week than normally took place in a year. ...

In Yemen, a US Navy destroyer was planning a port call in Aden harbor ... USS The Sullivans. As we later learned, al Qaeda had it in the crosshairs. A small boat was loaded with high explosives in order to be driven right into the destroyer. Al Qaeda planned that attack to be simultaneous with others: Los Angles Airport exploding in blood and glass, the Amman Radisson collapsing in flames and dust, Christian tourists gunned down in Mount Nebo. ... As they pushed the boat down the landing and into the water, however, it moved off a little into the harbor and sank. The explosive weighed too much.

How many terrorist attacks must one prevent before they are said to do their job. Numerous Millennium terrorist attacks averted because top administration people took the threat so serious as to empower the little people. So serious as to make the CSG a principles office directly part of the National Security Council. It worked only because top administration officials took terrorism seriously. Viewed anti-terrorism as an operational organization - not a 'foreign policy' or ideological organization.

IOW what is more important - a political agenda or getting hand dirty empowering the workers? There is a fundamental difference between Clinton and George Jr. The former recognized danger. He empowered the people when danger was detected. He therefore stifled numerous terrorist attacks planned for the Millennium by empowering the workers. Terrorism became more difficult under Clinton who even eliminated embassies that could not be protected. Terrorist attacks against at least two American embassies (Albania and Uganda) were averted which included arrests in Azerbaijan, Italy, and Britain. Also discovered was the al Qaeda forgery operation in Albania. This is what happens when a problem is taken seriously by top management - especially the president.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

When you look at the litany of terrorist acts against the US during the Clinton years (including WTC truck bomb, OKC, Khobar Towers, etc.) you gotta wonder ...

Clinton: investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators.
Bush: Kill someone else.

[lookout123]

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war.

One went after the people responsible for the acts.
The other lied to us to go to war with an uninvolved country. (Or are we still looking for those wmds?)

- Pie

[lookout123]

we didn't go to iraq because of al quaeda. much of america supported the war because of the information about WMD.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

That's not accurately expressed. Clinton viewed terrorism as a major threat. bin Laden had not been clearly identified as a threat until the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton would not put feet on the ground (to invade) because we did not have the smoking gun. But he did everything else he could to attack those who threatened Americans. That included driving bin Laden out of Sudan AND responding to every 'real' threat. 'Real' as in the threat truly exists as opposed to any silly little rumor that causes another orange alert (that was until Tom Ridge finally stopped issuing orange alerts and Ashcroft got mad).

Clinton had no authority to make war. That authority only existed when a smoking gun existed - 11 September. So who does George Jr attack? Saddam. George Jr lets bin Laden go free. What kind of war is that? One fought for reason of ideology rather than reasons operational. Not one single American battalion was ever sent to get bin Laden. We should be talking about impeachment here for dereliction of duty. Or do we excuse him only because they did not tell him to attack the right nation?

Remember what George Jr said to Richard Clarke. He wanted Saddam blamed for the WTC attack. Ideology is more important that reality. He let bin Laden go free. He did not even attack the real American enemy. At least Clinton took every effort to attack when he could. But then we are talking about a president who could make decisions.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the difference is that one president viewed these as crimes for the courts to deal with. the other views them as acts of war. the difference between the views explains the different approach in dealing with them.

Pre-9-11, Clinton did a lot, and provided advice and data to the incoming Bush team. He made surgical strikes, and was accused of "wagging the dog".

Pre-9-11, Bush did nothing. Nothing on terrorism. Pre-9-11, Bush didn't consider terrorism to be even worth investigating as criminal activity.

Post-9-11, we only have one data point on how the different parties react to terrorism. Bush makes a feint towards Afghanistan, then returns to a war from a decade ago, which he had been promoting even before 9-11. Afghanistan starts falling back under Taleban control.

No President, Democrat or Republian, will treat terrorism in the same way post-9-11 as they did pre-9-11. When you compare records pre-9-11, Democrats are far ahead.

[lookout123]

tw, it is obvious that neither of us will ever convince the other or anything, but let's be clear.

Rice apparently did not even know of al Qaeda.

that statement was already discredited, because Rice referred to al quaeda by name in a speech in 2000. i will have to search for the reference on that, but i have heard the speech.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Pre-9-11, Clinton did a lot, and provided advice and data to the incoming Bush team. He made surgical strikes, and was accused of "wagging the dog".

Those particular surgical strikes were on which country involved in terrorism?

[Undertoad]

and we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set that these terrorist attacks are criminal attacks and we're not really at war

Cheney's statement was horrible and I hope they take the time to at least re-state it to emphasize the above part. The danger is that an administration decides to approach the problem as a law enforcement problem and not a bubbling international war. But the point is moot because the public wouldn't stand for it to be treated as a law-enforcement problem anyway.