Skip to comments.Cheney Speech: News Needs to Start Picking Up the Reality Check
Posted on 09/09/2004 6:42:17 AM PDT by vanderleun
When they start to argue about "what happens 'if,' " instead of "what happens 'when,'" you know that its time to call for the Reality Check, tip a penny, and get home in time to catch a Survivor re-run.
The New York Times makeover into the insane intellectual's favorite watering hole and Hooters franchise continues apace today with this fresh hooter steaming in middle of the dependably insane editorial columns.
If John Kerry was elected president, Mr. Cheney warned the crowd, "the danger is that we'll get hit again." In a long, rather rambling statement, he said the United States might then fall back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that "these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts." -- A Disgraceful Campaign SpeechThe 'long ramble' between the two clauses quoted above amounts to this:
" ....the danger is that we'll get hit again,You can make up your own mind about the extent to which the Times is cherry-picking the original statement for its own dull purposes. Julian Sanchez at Hit & Run parses the statement well and shines some light on the use of it as "a partisan tactic or an attempt to generate a news story."
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 thepre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in factthese terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.-- Remarks by the Vice President
It is both really and is working well in this forgettable news cycles on all counts.
What isn't emerging is the truth about the situation. And that truth is that as far as the next "hit" is concerned it really, as one of my friends said many months ago in email, "doesn't matter one tinker's damn who gets elected, it will happen anyway."
He's right and he's right beyond the 99.9999999% limit. As we count down to the sad 3rd anniversary of September 11, breathes there a man with mind so dead that he does not believe to the core of his being that a second, third and other terrorist attacks on the United States soil is anything other than inevitable? If there is he is certainly running for re-election.
We can do and have done many things to increase "homeland security." We can do much, much more -- much of which we will not do. We could seal the entire country in tanzanite, we could shrink-wrap it in ideology, we could cause the resurrection and deployment of the Stasi, the Waffen SS, the Gestapo and the Republican Guard along our borders and throughout our nation, and we would still be attacked on American soil again and again. To paraphrase Frank Zappa over there on my side bar, "there's a lot of ways to delay that trouble comin' every day, but there's no way to avoid it."
This idea that because "he's kept the country safe since 9/11, ergo you will be safe forever if you vote for George Bush" is intellectual clap-trap. The counter-argument that "John Kerry will involve the French and Germans and jump-start international love for America and keep us safe forever" is the equal but opposite horse-apple. Both are lies and mean exactly nothing.
The real issue here at the bottom line on the Reality check is: "When the next attack comes, and the attacks after that, what, exactly, is the next President of the United States prepared to do about it?" For that answer, the only place to look is the one place the Times and the media do not want the voters to look -- at the record of the two candidates.
If you were to look at the records of both candidates prior to 9/11, you probably wouldn't have been able to tell what either one would have done.
Perhaps some think that it would be better to go with one that would have learned from the others mistakes, and try something new...than to continue with one that they disagree with.
Well done !!
I think the Times should have just printed the above sentence. It sums up the whole question of "If Kerry becomes president" nicely.
Very factual and fairly non-partisan article. Someone you know write this?
Remember what Alexander Hamilton said "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything"
That is correct.... When Bush was running for President the first thime the lefties were all in a tissy about how many death row inmates had been put to death in Texas. Since then you do not hear a word about that. These dims are just about on my last and final nerve. COME ON NOVEMBER 3~~~~~
they will start their it wasn't fair cry baby attacts then and start impeachement proceedings.
OK...just throwing out some different perspectives.
Remember though, that it is possible to appear to stand for nothing, while waiting for the opportunity to act...that is being flexible enough to make decisions on the fly, and not standing on pre-conceived notions.
The WTC has been bombed twice. What was Clinton's rebuttal to the first bombing?????
Like as in war when battles and other percieved outcomes change and you have to adjust, but the basic reason you are fighting the war does not change and is based on firm ground. You are fighting for a reason, based on sound moral and logical principals.
The war on terror is a great example of that: We must protect Americans anywhere in the world and strike them before they strike us or order to win.
"Very factual and fairly non-partisan article. Someone you know write this?"
Yes. I did. Thanks for the kind words.
The point is that, pre-9/11, the government (clinton) treated the terrorists as criminals. Post-9/11 Bush treated them as enemies.
The clinton government did little or nothing to combat the situation because of this mind set. How do you "arrest" criminals hiding in Afghanistan?
If you were blind and ignorant of the past then you could not predict. If you knew ANYTHING about Kerry the prediction is easy.
I'm not talking about Kerry, I could not care less about him....as I said, I'm just throwing out some different views.
Agreed mostly...I'm concerned that we stike the real enemy.
I was sincere. Very good job.
No, you were talking about the candidates and claiming their actions were not predictable prior to 9/11. I am sorry but the actions of both were ENTIRELY predictable for any knowing their beliefs and history.
You're right, my mistake on not talking about Kerry..while I don't claim to know anything about either candidate, I don't think that one could have accuratedly predicted what they would do.
Being tough on criminals, I don't believe, is the same as responding to 9/11, and I don't believe that Mr. Kerry was ever in a position to deal with criminals.
Kerry was a prosecutor in Massachusetts prior to assuming federal office. He was also Michael (Willie Horton) Dukakis's Lt. Gov. and part of the Why Don't We allow Murderers and Rapists to Have Furloughs gang.
It should be easy for anyone familiar with Kerry's past to predict EXACTLY how he would react. He repeatedly stated he was opposed to unilateral action and supported UN approved actions.
You cannot seriously maintain that predicting how a Conservative will react compared to an Ultra-Liberal is difficult can you?
Predicting how a person will react is difficult, if not impossible.....predicting how a party member will react depends on what the party wants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.