The Cheney Shuffle

http://nftunderground.blogspot.com/2004/09/cheney-shuffle.html

basically what Cheney said on 9/7/04 was if we elect John Kerry on Nov 2nd, we are in danger of getting hit in a way that will be devastating. One would have to assume then, that if we make the right choice and elect Bush, we avoid that danger altogether. If not, then what is the point of this statement? If we will be in danger of an attack no matter what choice we make in November, then how can either choice be deemed right or wrong?


----------snip---------


He said if we elect Kerry we are in danger of a devastating attack but what he meant was that we might get attacked either way and if we did we needed to act pre-emptively???

Let me point out an important fact to the Vice President. If we are attacked, any reaction to that attack is re-active. For us to act pre-emptively we would have to attack the attackers before they attack us, effectively foiling the attack and... oh... I get it... Because Bush is willing to pre-emptively attack other nations before they attack us, he will inevitably foil the pending devastating attack. So in his clarification today, Cheney is really saying that if we elect John Kerry in November we will be in danger of being attacked and if we elect Bush, we will not be in danger because we can count on him to pre-emptively attack anyone who might even be thinking about attacking us.
---------snip---------------

:thumbsup:

if that's a flip-flop or a nuanced position.

This is what Cheney said before:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,"

and this is what he said today:

"Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks."

NO nuance there, it is definitely a flip/flop.

He essentialy said the same thing

vote for kerry and get attacked

vote for Bush and he will foil the attack because of his doctorine of pre-emption

remember -- the doctorin of pre-emption is meaningless after we have been attacked -- the fact that Cheney brought it up -- i think -- was his way of re-iterating his earlier comments and making it look like he was backing off them at the same time

he spoke of choice, meaning bush versus Kerry in the first, and spoke of "whoever" in the second. What I do find in his pre-emption is a strong indicator that we will be getting warnings that Iran needs to be attacked.

Invading Iran has crossed my mind too. (not me invading iran, but another battle in the war on terra)

:crazy:

THEY would HELP those that want to attack us. Something like what Raygun/PapaChimp did... when somehow the rescue attempt to free the hostages was foiled and we lost a helicopter and servicemen in Iran. Thus ensuring the Raygun win in the election. Had it been successful, Carter would have won a second term.

Just my Humble Opinion....
:kick:

Maybe he was implying we should attack France next--that'll stop 'em!



F****n Idiot.