Is Dick Cheney a Terrorist?

[Salome]

the majority of the americans believe it because it is being repeated over & over again by people like Cheney

it's not a simple A or B

 

[BVS]

what's the worse thing for kerry...
a) that cheney said it
or
b) a majority of americans believe it

Shouldn't it be worded; b) a majority of Americans fall for it.

 

[nbcrusader]

Why is the American public considered "duped" if they believe the GOP version of things?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think it's necessarily the "GOP version"-it's the scare tactics/distortions that frankly I think underestimate the intelligence of the American public

Or should I say misunderestimate

 

[BVS]

Why is the American public considered "duped" if they believe the GOP version of things?

Where the hell is there one shred of evidence that we're open to or will be attacked more so under Kerry than Bush? Peope are falling for the fact that the GOP have a crystal ball. Let the GOP stick to the issues and facts and let the people decide that way. Fear shouldn't be a tool in this election.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Shouldn't it be worded; b) a majority of Americans fall for it.

i don't have to fall for it... i've seen it with my own eyes

 

[anitram]

The electorate does not have the attention span to study a candidates position on issues.

Then this is a testament to the failure of the public school system in America, AKA, yet another reason not to vote for Bush.

 

[STING2]

Fact? It's funny what's passing as fact these days. Starts to put the everything else surrounding this election in perspective.

So now the polls determine terrorist attacks...

Who do you think is more likely to spend more money on the military and national security, Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards?

Who do you think is more likely to take military action in the face of various threats in order to prevent terrorism, Bush/Cheney or Kerry Edwards?

Guess who would rather use the money being spent to support are troops in the field as well as the development of Iraq and Afghanistan on US Domestic programs? Guess who voted against funding of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as money for the development of those countries?

 

[STING2]

There's a lead because people believe these scare tactics. They came out after the Democratic convention to scare us with the idea that terrorists are going to attack the election. We've known this since the Madrid bombings in March. Tom Ridge comes out and says the New York Stock Exchange and Financial District are targets and raised the terror alert level for them to orange. Where has he been? NYC has been at an orange alert level since they instituted that dumb system. And can any of you say you're surprised the NYSE was a terror target? Isaw all the cops and National Guard there before that alert. Nothing has changed. But of course, that won't win votes the way scare tactics will.

Rubbish. There is a war going on and its absurd after 9/11 to say that the administration is trying to scare the public.

 

[Jamila]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1554217.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dick_Cheney.htm

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/dick-cheney/

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Dick_Cheney


I was asked before to post links to websites that would substantiate my position that Dick Cheney is a dangerous man. (Right next to Carl Rove) Here are some websites that would substantiate my position.

You do not have to agree with my position, but I am entitled to have it. You are entitled to yours.

I do not fight with others here about their opinions. I simply state mine.

Let's try to find better ways to respect each other's right to express ourselves without always having to wnder if you will be personally attacked for giving your point of view.

I'm sure this inhibits some people here from voicing their opinions more often.

LOVE AND PEACE.....or else

 

[BVS]

Who do you think is more likely to spend more money on the military and national security, Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards?

Who do you think is more likely to take military action in the face of various threats in order to prevent terrorism, Bush/Cheney or Kerry Edwards?

Guess who would rather use the money being spent to support are troops in the field as well as the development of Iraq and Afghanistan on US Domestic programs? Guess who voted against funding of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as money for the development of those countries?

So sinking money into the military, no matter if it's placing it in the right areas or not guarantees safety?

Many have fallen for that logic, but it still doesn't make anything fact.

I don't agree with your everything is black and white thinking, I see far much gray that you don't.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I've spent the last month in New York (got back to Australia a few days ago) and so obviously was there through the whole convention. I didn't plan that in any way, and I didn't take part in any protests. But obviously the convention, the election and the Republican agenda were all that anyone was talking about. Hearing the views from dozens of other travellers from all over the world, dozens of local New Yorkers ranging from cab drivers to businessmen to students etc etc across all ages and cultures, and even spending an all nighter drinking and debating with 4 Republican delegates from Texas (!!) it was very, very interesting and I learned a lot.

God help the United States if you re-elect Bush.

 

[sharky]

Rubbish. There is a war going on and its absurd after 9/11 to say that the administration is trying to scare the public.

Why is it absurd? it's historic. the Nazis did it.

Oh right, I'm not supposed to question my government. I'm not supposed to think they would ever do anything wrong. That's un-American.

 

[STING2]

Why is it absurd? it's historic. the Nazis did it.

Oh right, I'm not supposed to question my government. I'm not supposed to think they would ever do anything wrong. That's un-American.

Great, here we go again with the "Bush is Hitler" type remarks. I think you can question your governments actions without making such absurd acusations and comparing them to the Nazi's.

 

[STING2]

So sinking money into the military, no matter if it's placing it in the right areas or not guarantees safety?

Many have fallen for that logic, but it still doesn't make anything fact.

I don't agree with your everything is black and white thinking, I see far much gray that you don't.

Military spending is vital to this country. There are so many things that often go underfunded in the military. The fact is, its money well spent. New weapons and Technology enable the military to win wars faster, and survive on the battlefield. Training allows the military to prepare for difficult situations and increases the chances of mission success, reduces causulties. Both of these things help to win war as well as deter war from happening in the first place.

Military personal and theif families deserve good pay and benefits. It makes me sick when liberals want to raid the military budget for all their pet projects. I'd like to ask them which weapon system do they not want are soldiers to not have? How much of their vital training do they want to cut? How much of their overall pay and benefits do they want to cut?

The fact is, the less you spend on the military, the more you bleed when war is or becomes necessary. The less you spend on the military, the more likely you are to invite trouble around the world. When opponents sence you are weak, that is when they are more likely to strike.

The United States was not ready for World War I or World War II. Had the USA been, as well as having been actively involved early on, millions of lives could have been saved. Having learned from that lesson, the United States built up its military forces not to long after the end of World War II and maintained a forward defense posture around the world in containing the Soviet Union. The Strategy worked very well successfully detering Soviet Agression in Europe and else where and preventing World War III. In addition, the United States won wars in the 1990s with historically low causulties. A strong military force has and will be required to defend and help secure the planet and global economy from major disruptions for some time to come. It is vital in the war on terror as well.

 

[Salome]

Great, here we go again with the "Bush is Hitler" type remarks. I think you can question your governments actions without making such absurd acusations and comparing them to the Nazi's.

we sort of try to prevent Hitler references over here (and I do think we're being quiet succesfull in keeping the forum clean from that) but in all fairness I don't see the post you quoted as a "Bush is Hitler" type remark
it is one of the most obvious examples of a large group of people being pushed into a certain direction by means of fear

 

[Salome]

Military personal and theif families deserve good pay and benefits. It makes me sick when liberals want to raid the military budget for all their pet projects.

I agree with your post (though I'm not 100% sure that pumping more money into the military by definition leads to less casualties etc) but I don't know enough about american politics to be able to state whether democrats would just spend this money on pet projects

I would start with healthcare, social security and education myself

 

[BVS]

Sting2,

I agree that military spending is important. But to say that Kerry is not for military spending because he didn't pass a certain bill is irresponsible. I don't think every military spending bill is effective, I believe Kerry says he didn't pass these bills because he didn't like the way the funds were being allocated and he would have liked to see it alllocated differently. Bush hasn't been 100% military either, there have benefit cuts he's made during war time.

 

[sharky]

and not only benefit cuts for those who serve now -- health care, salary -- but benefit cuts for those who served during WWII and Vietnam. It's not right.

And i wasn't saying Bush is Hitler. I would never do something like that. What I'm saying is that specifically in Germany during the war, no one asked questions because the government had made people afraid to do so. One needs to look no further than the free ride most journalists gave the president after 9/11. For a year, no one asked "Wait, what connection between al Qaeda and Saddam?" or "Why not try to build a coalition?" It was just "Bin Laden stays over at Saddam's palaces" and "FREEDOM FRIES!!!!" even though fries are Belgian. I'm in journalism myself and wish these people would be asking harder questions.

There is a sign someone put in the window of a building across the street from the Trade Center that I walk by everyday with the quote "Dissention is the highest form of patriotism."If Thomas Jefferson said that 200 years ago, why can't we say that today?

 

[Judah]

With limited taxpayer funds available for military and other programs, you gotta be very sure which long-term programs to commit money to...

As has been pointed out by many, Dick Cheney (and Bush Sr.) have in the past opposed major defense spending:

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

"Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush."

 

[STING2]

With limited taxpayer funds available for military and other programs, you gotta be very sure which long-term programs to commit money to...

As has been pointed out by many, Dick Cheney (and Bush Sr.) have in the past opposed major defense spending:

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

"Furthermore, Bush's own father, who was then President, and Richard Cheney, who was then Secretary of Defense, proposed to cut or eliminate several of the very same weapons that Republicans now fault Kerry for opposing. In his first appearance before Congress as Defense Secretary in April 1989, for example, Cheney outlined $10 billion in defense cuts including proposed cancellation of the AH-64 Apache helicopter, and elimination of the F-15E ground-attack jet. Two years later Cheney's Pentagon budget also proposed elimination of further production of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and targeted a total of 81 Pentagon programs for termination, including the F-14 and F-16 aircraft. And the elder President Bush said in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B - 2 bombers. . . . And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles." So if Kerry opposed weapons "our troops depend on," so did Cheney and the elder President Bush."

What you are missing and fail to understand is the CONTEXT in which these cuts by George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney took place.

1. In 1989-1991 the cold war and the threat from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact came to a complete end. Starting in 1989 the Berlin Wall and Communist Governments all across Europe fell. By the end of 1991, the Soviet Union ceaced to exist.

2. Because of this dramatic change in the level of threat to the United States and the rest of the world, cuts were made by the Bush administration in the number of weapon systems that would be needed to outfit divisions and airwings etc. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact, the number of divisions and airwings were going to increase. The number of weapon systems that are needed is based on the size of the force structure that needs to be supplied. The above cuts that were enacted, came because the divisions and airwings that would recieve such equipment either no longer existed or were going to be disbanded within the coming years. It would make no sense to buy vehicles and planes for divisions and airwings that no longer existed!

3. When the above cuts were implemented, the military already had more than enough of these weapon systems to supply and equip the number of divisions and airwings that the Pentagon had planned for, for the 1990s in light of the lower level of threat. So there were no incidences where soldiers had equipment taken from them or failed to recieve the most modern equipment!

4. When Kerry campaigned for the Senate in 1984, proposed canceling and cutting lots of major weapon systems that had only started into production or had yet to go into production to include the M1 Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, MLRS Rocket System, Apache Attack Helicopter, Patriot Missile System to name a few. If Kerry had been successful in canceling these weapon systems in the mid 1980s, the Military would have had NONE of them or only a small few!

Contrast that with the cuts that Bush and Cheney proposed around 1990 when the military had completely armed and equiped themselves with the above weapon systems! As I said before, every division and Airwing under Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney received ALL of the equipment mentioned in your cited paragraph. The only weapon systems that got cut were weapon systems that were going to go to divisions and airwings that no longer existed! If Kerry had had his way though in the mid 1980s, the military, regardless of its size, would not have received these weapon systems at all!

So the arguement that Bush and Cheney cut weapon systems from the military and left them unarmed or with 20-30 year old weapon systems is 100% FALSE! What is TRUE is that if Kerry had had his way with his proposed weapons cancelations and cuts in the mid-1980s, the military would NOT have received most of these important weapon systems and would have been left unarmed or with weapon systems from the 1950s and 1960s.

 

[STING2]

and not only benefit cuts for those who serve now -- health care, salary -- but benefit cuts for those who served during WWII and Vietnam. It's not right.

And i wasn't saying Bush is Hitler. I would never do something like that. What I'm saying is that specifically in Germany during the war, no one asked questions because the government had made people afraid to do so. One needs to look no further than the free ride most journalists gave the president after 9/11. For a year, no one asked "Wait, what connection between al Qaeda and Saddam?" or "Why not try to build a coalition?" It was just "Bin Laden stays over at Saddam's palaces" and "FREEDOM FRIES!!!!" even though fries are Belgian. I'm in journalism myself and wish these people would be asking harder questions.

There is a sign someone put in the window of a building across the street from the Trade Center that I walk by everyday with the quote "Dissention is the highest form of patriotism."If Thomas Jefferson said that 200 years ago, why can't we say that today?

Benefits and pay were not cut overall, the way such pay and benefits were distributed was simply changed. Bush enacted the largest overall pay and benefits increase for the military since the Reagan increases of the early 1980s!

This forum is symbolic of the fact that even with 9/11, people were asking questions left and right as well as finding ways to unfairly criticize the President. Few presidents have received the level of criticism that Bush has.

I agree with people's rights to criticize and desent, but I feel it is wrong when it is done in a non-constructive, inaccurate, and untruthful manner, the ultimate example of which would be Michael Moore's film.

Bush is not Darth Vader or anyone from the German government of the 1930s and 1940s. He is not trying to create a climate of fear, but is responding to the one that Bin Ladin and others are attempting to create.

 

[STING2]

Sting2,

I agree that military spending is important. But to say that Kerry is not for military spending because he didn't pass a certain bill is irresponsible. I don't think every military spending bill is effective, I believe Kerry says he didn't pass these bills because he didn't like the way the funds were being allocated and he would have liked to see it alllocated differently. Bush hasn't been 100% military either, there have benefit cuts he's made during war time.

Kerry proposed canceling or cutting a wide number of Weapons programs back in the mid 1980s to include the M1 Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Apache Attack Helicopter, MLRS Missile System, and the Patriot Missile to name a few, all of which are vital to the men and women serving in the armed forces today. If Kerry had had his way back then, our soldiers would never have received these vital weapon systems.

The benefits cut thing that Democrats try to cite was simply a redistribution of how such benefits and pay were given to military personal. No one has increased the overall pay and benefits for military personal more than Bush over the past 20 years.

 

[STING2]

we sort of try to prevent Hitler references over here (and I do think we're being quiet succesfull in keeping the forum clean from that) but in all fairness I don't see the post you quoted as a "Bush is Hitler" type remark
it is one of the most obvious examples of a large group of people being pushed into a certain direction by means of fear

The Bush administration is not pushing anyone in a certain direction by means of fear. That is what Bin Ladin is trying to do. Perhaps these accusations are really a subtle attempt to paint Bush as Bin Ladin.


"I agree with your post (though I'm not 100% sure that pumping more money into the military by definition leads to less casualties etc) but I don't know enough about american politics to be able to state whether democrats would just spend this money on pet projects"

"I would start with healthcare, social security and education myself"

1. It is a historical fact that when a military is better armed, trained and prepared for battle, it takes less casaulties on the battlefield. It makes less mistakes, has more combat power to overcome obstacles and has a better chance of achieving victory in a quicker time than a military force that is under-armed, lacking in training, and there for prone to mistakes and unable to quickly gain the uperhand against opposing foes in battle.

I can go into very extensive detail to explain further if needed.

In my opinion, National Security comes before (Health Care, Social Security, and education) because if the country cannot defend itself, the others become irrelevent. A country that is unable to defend itself will ceace to exist, making any spending on the other things impossible.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

thanks for the clarification Mr VP...

from AP

In an interview Thursday with the Cincinnati Enquirer, Cheney sought to clarify those remarks, saying he wanted to "clean up" the controversy surrounding his remarks.

"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," Cheney told the newspaper. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks. My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry."

It doesn't seem to me that's what he said

 

[Klaus]

MrsSpringsteen
well if the whole world missunderstood him in his first remark...
...well they all should - to use Mr. Cheney s language - "Fuck temself"

 

[Judah]

Sting2, you're right that a person's senate/congress voting records have to be seen in context...and over a long period of time if possible. Maybe a long history of anti-defense voting may help someone earn the label "weak on defense. "

Most of the info. i can find says Kerry's been not that bad...(i probably need to expand my search; for now, i'll just quote FactCheck.org since they try to be balanced).

"And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate.

"It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. "

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

A Boston Globe story said questions the whole "so and so voted against this at that one time" arguments:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...4/04/29/cheneys_past_defense_cuts_questioned/

"But support for particular weapons ''is not a very useful way to judge strength or weakness," said a former congressional defense staffer who asked not to be named. Using such a yardstick, he added, President Jimmy Carter was the ''strongest" because his budgets resulted in the weapons that won the 1991 Gulf War."

 

[ThatGuy]

I like this bit from John McCain from an appearance on Hannity and Colmes on May 12, 2004:

MCCAIN: I would be accused of voting against numerous weapon systems, because I voted against defense appropriations bills because they’re loaded down with pork. And they’re obscene today with all of the pork-barrel spending and multi-trillion dollar deficits. I’ll probably vote against the defense appropriations bill this year. I was accused of voting against breast cancer research because that was on a defense appropriations bill that I voted against, so—

 

[STING2]

Sting2, you're right that a person's senate/congress voting records have to be seen in context...and over a long period of time if possible. Maybe a long history of anti-defense voting may help someone earn the label "weak on defense. "

Most of the info. i can find says Kerry's been not that bad...(i probably need to expand my search; for now, i'll just quote FactCheck.org since they try to be balanced).

"And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate.

"It is true that when Kerry first ran for the Senate in 1984 he did call specifically for canceling the AH-64 Apache helicopter, but once elected he opposed mainly such strategic weapons as Trident nuclear missiles and space-based anti-ballistic systems. "

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=177

A Boston Globe story said questions the whole "so and so voted against this at that one time" arguments:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...4/04/29/cheneys_past_defense_cuts_questioned/

"But support for particular weapons ''is not a very useful way to judge strength or weakness," said a former congressional defense staffer who asked not to be named. Using such a yardstick, he added, President Jimmy Carter was the ''strongest" because his budgets resulted in the weapons that won the 1991 Gulf War."

The articles that you posted continue to bring up things that ignore the context of the cuts that took place during the years Cheney was Secretery of Defense. The number one point being that the weapon systems that were canceled or cut when Cheney was Secretery were weapon systems that the military had thousands of already and simply did not need more of as the divisions they were planned to equip were not going to exist anymore.

Compare that with Kerry who PROPOSED and CAMPAIGNED to have these weapon systems canceled and cut prior to any or most of these weapon systems being in the inventory of the military.

The critique of Kerry's weakness on defense matters does not rely on votes, but on proposals and campaigns for cuts. Just as many have said votes against defense appropriations does not mean they wanted certain weapon systems but, any votes for some defense appropriations does not necessary mean that they wanted everything in the bill.

So, Zel Miller's speach as well as what I have been saying does not rely on these "votes" in congress by on the idea's and the proposals of the candidate over a 20 year Senate Career. In the halls of congress, Kerry was never known as a hawk on defense spending. In fact, everything shows the opposite to be true.

The website factcheck.org is obviously biased in its analysis, because they have often get the context of things wrong as well as using selective facts to make points which have obvious political overtones. The idea of the website is good and they have done some good things, but overall, its a website dressed up as being non-political and only interested in the facts, when in fact it either is subtly pushing a political agenda or has made some error's in its fact checking and reporting.

The type of commentery and selective use of facts as well as missing context show that everything this website says has to be taken with a grain of salt.

The 1991 Gulf War was won by weapon systems that were developed and PURCHASED during the Reagan Error! The M1A1(Heavy Armor) version was first developed and built in 1988, with all the M1A1's(Heavy Armor) used in the 1991 Gulf War being put out from 1988 into the early 1990s. Other M1A1 tanks prior to this were first purchased in 1985. Apache Attack Helicopter and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle both came out in 1984. Same with MLRS and Patriot!

Not that Carter was weak on defense, he did push through the development stages of SOME weapon systems while attempting to cancel others. The big increases in defense spending though came after the Carter years in Reagan's first administration. The resistence to these weapon systems came from the democrats. There were eleborate campaigns by democrats to kill virtually everyone new weapon system the military put in the field in the 1980s. Kerry was apart of many of these campaigns.

 

[STING2]

I like this bit from John McCain from an appearance on Hannity and Colmes on May 12, 2004:

Its not about the votes for these large appropriation bills which cannot be looked as support for certain weapon systems when there is a vote for them, just as they can't be looked as being against a certain weapon system when there is a vote against them. Rather, it is the proposals, idea's and campaigns for or against these weapon systems during their campaigns and testimony for the Senate which show where the support or lack of support his for specific things in various bills.

John Kerry is not a hawk when it comes to working to give the military everything it asked for, and most people know that. At critical times when new weapons were coming out, Kerry campaigned against them.