Cheney: Iraq Violence Linked to Election

AP ^ | 10/30/6

[SmithL]

Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday the increase of violence in Iraq is linked with efforts to influence the outcome of midterm elections in which Republicans are struggling to keep control of Congress.

"It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled and they can get on the Web sites like anybody else," Cheney said. He said al-Qaida and other elements were trying to "break the will of the American people" because "they think we don't have the stomach for the fight long-term."

Asked if the attacks were timed to influence the U.S. elections, Cheney said, "That's my belief."

Eight days before the elections, Cheney sat down for interviews for Fox News Channel's `Your World with Neil Cavuto' and CNBC's "Kudlow & Company."

[backtothestreets]

That may be true...however, the terrorists know that a Democrat administration will change things in their favor.

If this is what the terrorists know, it may well prove to be their undoing one day if history is any indication. If a major 9-11 attack occurred during a Democratic Administration now, the Democrats would feel absolutely betrayed and with have to rally their party to a conservative cause, and the Republicans would already be holding that ground.

Before the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Democratic Party boasted a nearly insurmountable majority in the House of Representative and an overwhelming majority in the Senate. The election in the following November changed all that. It might be argued the attack brought back the GOP from oblivion to where it is today.

Don't think I'm among those saying the GOP should lose this election or the 2008 presidential election so as to gain later. I'm just saying if the terrorists think a Democratic Administration will change things in their favor they might find themselves badly mistaken. When a Republican president seeks war he is labeled a war monger. When a Democratic president seeks war, the nation unites to the position already held by Republicans.

[gridlock]

Of course Vice President Cheney is right, but he's going to catch Hell for saying so. The Democrats will go wild if anybody suggests that the terrorists want them to win.

But when you go into the voting booth, forget everything else and ask yourself what the terrorists want you to do. Then decide for yourself.

But don't deceive yourself for a moment that they will ever leave us alone. The only way to end this fight is to put those SOBs in the ground.

[gridlock]

Terrorist Absentee Ballots

[backtothestreets]

Good point and exactly what the US had to do with Muslim extremists when we took possession of the Philippines from Spain. A Governor-General was appointed to oversee Philippines government and exercise military control, which at one point had General "Blackjack" Pershing terrorizing the terrorists. That they finally understood.

The Philippines was also where conservative Republican Henry Stimson gained many of the tools he later used as Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt to guide our nation to complete victory.

[yldstrk]

Of course it is--the terrorists want the Democrats to win so they can run the country their way when the troops are pulled out.

[Victor]

"...When a Democratic president seeks war, the nation unites to the position already held by Republicans....."

Except for Vietnam. Democrats started that war, but the nation hardly united...thanks to the rise of Marxism in this country and their infiltration into the media and educational system.

WW11 was unique in that the Dems were still American patriots who just happened to believe in expansive government and entitlements.

But I digress...your point is well taken, but the example of Clinton's escapades in the Balkans comes to mind. No focus, no intention to win, I can't remember the nation rallying to ANY point aleady held by the conservatives.

[NicknamedBob]

"... the example of Clinton's escapades in the Balkans comes to mind. No focus, no intention to win, I can't remember the nation rallying to ANY point aleady held by the conservatives."

It always struck me that the problem with Clinton's escapade in the Balkans was that he chose to support the non-Christian side.

Maybe he thought the Muslims would like us.

[caveat emptor]

It's not a matter of all elections. This election is about staying the course in the WOT or returning to the days when it was a law enforcement issue and a nuisance (according to John Kerry). The terrorists would like to see the cut-n-run, ostrich crowd win, of course.

I agree. My take is that they are working extra hard this election, and if the GOP does better than predicted by the doomsayers they will be de-energized, and the situation in Iraq will improve.

[backtothestreets]

Your point about Viet Nam is well taken, but our involvement in Viet Nam didn't come on the heels of an attack on our nation as happened with the 9-11 attacks, the Attack on Pearl Harbor and the Lusitania in the pre-WWI days of 1915.

When the Lusitania was sunk President Wilson pledged initially that America would not fight, but eventually succumbed to the mounting pressure led by former president Teddy Roosevelt labeling Wilson a coward. The domestic outcome of WWI politically was a Republican president and Congress.

[backtothestreets]

It always struck me that the problem with Clinton's escapade in the Balkans was that he chose to support the non-Christian side.

Maybe he thought the Muslims would like us.

Yeah, that struck me too.

[Jacquerie]

Sorry, but those pigs have other things on their minds than US mid-term elections.

I disagree. Just because they are barbarians does not mean they would not try to influence our midterms. That they would rather have the rats in power is indisputable.

[pfflier]

Or watching the results of the attacks on Spain's elections.

[Jacquerie]

When a Democratic president seeks war, the nation unites to the position already held by Republicans.

How true. You reminded me of rat comments after 911 to the effect of "If only this had happened on Clinton's watch". Since it happened on the GOP watch, they oppose it and everything else the President proposes.

[pleikumud]

The Democrats are allies of the terrorists, because they both want President Bush - and therefore our troops and the United States - to fail in Iraq, and in the war on terror in general. The terrorists of course favor the Democrats, because they know our national defense will be weaker if the Democrats control policy. The disasterous Clinton years are ample evidence.

[backtothestreets]

Yes, and although we cannot write another history, I am one that believes that had the 9-11 attacks taken place with either Clinton or Gore (had he been elected), the war would be much wider right now, the Republicans would have achieved a much larger victory in both houses of Congress, and there would be some very serious Muslim butt-kicking going on. There is just absolutely no way the Republicans wouldn't have led the chorus for a larger war had there been a Democratic Administration, and the vast American public would have joined that chorus. Striking us while our strength was in office was actually a setback, strange though it seems. Border enforcement and strong immigration reform would have been achieved too.

I can equate this phenomenon to other political events. It took Nixon, a Republican to open diplomatic ties with China as it was ground Democrats couldn't tread, but they were already on-board. The same with Nixon's proposal for the EPA. It took Clinton to push through a welfare reform as Republicans were already on-board (and had been for decades). Politics often produces strange bedfellows.