Cheney says terrorists will attack if Kerry wins

Fox News reported today (9/8/04):,3566,131692,00.html

There’s already a Pit thread on this (, which I guess is appropriate, but it’s also GD material. Why did Cheney say this in public? It’s utterly, incredibly over-the-stop stupid and inflammatory even for an election season as heated as this one. Just how desperate are these guys?

Because there are no depths too deep for this administration to sink to in order to terrorize and demoralize the citizens of this country.

Uhmmmmm… because he (and the Bush campaign) think it will help them at the polls? Bush is ***VERY ***strong against Kerry when people are asked who would do a better job in fighting terrorism (scroll about 1/3 of the way down), scoring 60 percent to Kerry’s 32.

But being that blatant about it might backfire. I don’t think it was particularly wise, but hey, who am I to advise Rove?

Yeah, How DARE they do that? (to paraphrase Gore)

:confused: Cite? I guess you’re paraphrasing some exchange from 2000, but I don’t remember it.

And John Edwards owes me for a new irony meter. Mine just burst when I read about him saying he wouldn’t divide America over something. coughTwo Americascough

But seriously, is this substantively different than what Kerry said earlier this year?

And, btw, your title is inacurate. Look at your actual quote from Cheney.

If I say “there is a danger that you will die tomorrow”, I’m not saying “you will die tomorrow”.

Yeah, what if there’s a big successful terrorist attack before the election now? Cheney’s words could really come back to haunt him. Rove must have checked with homeland security to see that the actual and secret terror alert color is GREEN, and expected to stay that way, before clearing Cheney’s rant. Of course, if that’s true, then the whole war on terror scare bit is a lie anyhow, and we may as well vote for Kerry.

You don’t remember the “How DARE they…” Peace and Freedom speech that Gore made some months ago? You had to be there…

While you’re at it, replace your whoosh meter. Edwards does not create the Two Americas by pointing out the divisive policies of the Republicans. Your criticism is like accusing someone of breaking the law just because they reported a crime . Shoot the messenger much?

Yeah, who WAS it who was asleep at the switch “pre 9/11”?
I think John Mace got this one. He is ramming home a notion that Kerry is soft on terrorism. If you repeat something often enough, it becomes truth.

He most certainly does “create” it, because there are not Two Americas. If the US were like some 3rd world country with a small elite, a huge underclass, and virtually no middle class., he might have a point. He is trying to create an us vs. them feeling, which is at its very nature divisive.

I’m not going to say that the Pubs don’t do this in their own way, but you do need to understand that to many Republicans (and libertarians), much of the Democratic platform is very divisive. Neither party has a monopoly on this tactic, but Edwards has made it explicit. I personally find that very offensive.

I believe Edwards point was “This administration’s policies are helping to create Two Americas.”
Not “There are two Americas. Whose side are you on?”

I dont get it.

The big terrorist attack that started all this happened after Bush came into office. So isn’t it logical that if you do not want more big terrorist attacks - then get rid of him.

What Cheney is saying is - even though this stuff started after Bushco got into power, vote him in again and it will go away??? Weird stuff.

Well, at what point would you say there are two Americas (allowing for the fact that this is, of course, a “rhetorical statement” rather than a literal statement)? Right now, you have 1% of the population owning 38% of the wealth. This is much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country. (Britain is apparently #2 with the top 1% having ~23% of the wealth.) And, this inequality was rapidly increasing even before the Bush policies which will no doubt help it increase even more.

As I’ve stated in other threads of this genre, a frightened populace is an easily controlled and manipulated populace. If you convince people they should be frightened, then by golly they probably will be frightened. And if you then offer up the bogeyman for them to be frightened of, well ditto. And if you offer yourself as salvation, well then you do the math. It’s worked for madmen and tyrants throughout history. Now is no different.

When you can demostrate that there is a bimodal distribution, rather than a normal distribtuion, of any significant economic metric of our society.

I actually should have said: a bimodal distritution vs any single peaked distribtution, be it normal, Poisson, etc.

“Two Americas” needs to have a non-arbitrary delineation point.

I think you are spot on here Chefguy.

Well, the difference in the two statements is that one is based on four years of documented blunders and several more of inept corruption, while the other is another baseless scare tactic from the people who brought us the dirtiest election campaign in history.

Al Qaeda people have said they’re actually hoping for Bush to get re-elected, serious analyses of the Iraq situation are pretty much uniform in concluding that US actions have substantially increased terrorism, militant Islamist movements have been boosted all around the world with one heck of a free PR campaign and recruitment drive, anti-American sentiment is at a high, Muslims and Arabs feel increasingly persecuted and blame (not entirely unreasonably) the US, and chunks of the world including the Middle East and large parts of Eurasia are increasingly destabilized. How has any of this made the US safer?

Kerry’s statement not only seems quite accurate, it is pretty much incontrovertible unless you argue that to date no major attacks post 9/11 have succeeded on US soil – but then again what reason is there to think that Kerry will fall flat on his face in this department? Anyway, that line wasn’t Kerry’s own creation or message, he is simply repeating words that have been uttered by many (including me) for a few years now.

Cheney’s crap on the other hand is yet another embarrassingly dirty tactic that banks on false alarmism and stupidity to reap votes – about par for the course, given who we’re talking about. The message is clear: “vote for us or you will suffer direly”; however, unlike the statement that Kerry adopted, there is no indication that it is true.

I don’t think Kerry will be any worse than Bush at throwing money at national security, in fact since kerry wants to increase federal revenues through taxes it is likely he will be able to throw more money than Bush without screwing the accounting… so I think the two are probably equal on that score; however Bush & Cheney deserve zero trust when it comes to the bigger picture, because with a track record like theirs doing even worse would have to be the result of a special effort. I don’t feel safe when I go to the US, because I see how much unaddressed anger there is at the US practically everywhere. That is the sort of thing that sets the scene for terrorist attacks.

It’s not really all that different where you’re sitting is it?
China Stoking "Climate of Fear’ in Hong Kong

These authoritarian regimes all use the same bag of tricks to get their way.

Indeed. And, sadly, it’s a tactic that works. But, on the lighter side, my favourite item of local propaganda lately has been the Chinese Olympic medallists, including several gold winners. These poor guys were trotted out here a few days ago from Beijing, put on a big stage, and made to give an atrocious show by singing cheesy pop tunes shortly before our elections here (whip up the pro-China sentiment, you know).

They were so bad that I felt a bit sorry for them. Accomplished athletes representing the pinnacle of their physical disciplines, and there they are crooning aimlessly…